0 1746 2 (Influence Line)

Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FWHA/TX-04/0-1746-2
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
IMPROVING BRIDGE RATING AND TRUCK PERMITTING
5. Report Date
June 2000
PROCEDURES THROUGH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
D. S. McIlrath, K. H. Frank, S. L. Wood, and J. A. Yura Research Report 0-1746-2
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Center for Transportation Research
The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78705-2650
11. Contract or Grant No.
Research Study 0-1746
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Texas Department of Transportation
Research and Technology Transfer Section, Construction Division
P.O. Box 5080
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Research Report (9/96-8/99)
Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes
Project conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of
Transportation.
16. Abstract
Annually, state DOTs are confronted with thousands of overweight truck permit applications and must determine the ability of
bridges along these routes to carry the permit loads. This research shows the benefits of performing more detailed analyses using
SAP2000 and BRUFEM, rather than using the AASHTO empirical equations, which were developed based upon bridge behavior
under design loads. Using these programs, lateral load distribution factors are more accurately calculated, giving better estimates
of the actual stress levels in bridge elements. Procedures are discussed, and research results shown, to help an analyst determine
which types of trucks will be likely to cause damage to various bridge designs. Implementation suggestions for the efficient office
use of these computer programs are also discussed. Use of these programs will allow state DOTs to model the response and stress
levels within bridge structures more accurately, allowing for longer bridge service lives in most cases.
17. Key Words
bridge rating, overloads, lateral load
distribution, bridge analysis
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161.
19. Security Classif. (of report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of pages
132
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

IMPROVING BRIDGE RATING AND TRUCK PERMITTING
PROCEDURES THROUGH FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

by

D. S. McIlrath, K. H. Frank,
S. L. Wood, J. A. Yura, and J. O. Jirsa

Research Report 1746-2

Research Project 0-1746

EFFECTS OF OVERLOADS
ON EXISTING STRUCTURES

conducted for the
Texas Department of Transportation

in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

by the
CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BUREAU OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

June 2000
iv
Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We greatly appreciate the financial support from the Texas Department of Transportation that made this
project possible. The support of the project director, John Holt (DES), and program coordinator, Ronald
Medlock (CST), is also very much appreciated. We thank Project Monitoring Committee members, Keith
Ramsey (DES), Curtis Wagner (MCD), Charles Walker (DES), and Don Harley (FHWA).

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal
Highway Administration or the Texas Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION,
PERMIT, OR BIDDING PURPOSES

K. H. Frank, Texas P.E. #48953
S. L. Wood, Texas P.E. #83804
J. A. Yura, Texas P.E. #29859
J. O. Jirsa, Texas P.E. #31360
Research Supervisors

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1..........................................................................................................................................1
Introduction........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Importance of Load Rating of Bridges ......................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives of Research ..............................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Study of Two TxDOT Steel Bridge Designs from 1955...................................................2
1.2.2 Study of Modern Bridge Design using AASHTO LRFD Edition 1..................................4
1.3 Overweight and Oversized Trucks in Texas ..............................................................................5
1.3.1 Related TxDOT Research Projects ...................................................................................6
1.4 Benefits of Finite Element Analysis ..........................................................................................6
1.5 Overview of Tasks Completed during Research Program.........................................................7

CHAPTER 2: TEXAS PERMIT TRUCK DATABASE ..................................................................9
2.1 Features of the Permit Truck Database....................................................................................10
2.2 Trends Present in the Typical Permit Truck Database.............................................................11
2.3 Trends Present in the Superheavy Truck Database..................................................................15

CHAPTER 3: LINE-GIRDER ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES.........................................................19
3.1 Development of the EXCEL Spreadsheet Program.................................................................19
3.2 Selection of SAP2000 for Bridge Analysis Purposes ..............................................................21
3.2.1 Using Line-Girder Analyses to Identify Critical Bridges.............................................22
3.2.2 Simple Span Bridge Line-Girder Analyses ..................................................................24
3.2.3 Continuous-Span Bridge Line-Girder Analyses...........................................................31
3.2.4 Truck Characteristics that Affect Maximum Moment Ratios ......................................36

CHAPTER 4: AASHTO APPROACH TO LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS ..39
4.1 Using AASHTO Design Procedures for LLDF Calculation....................................................39
4.1.1 Working Stress Design Empirical Equations ...............................................................40
4.1.2 Interior Girder LRFD Strength Limit State ...............................................................41
4.1.3 Exterior Girder LRFD Strength Limit State..............................................................42
4.1.4 Summary of Single Vehicle AASHTO LLDFs............................................................44

CHAPTER 5........................................................................................................................................47
BRUFEM Lateral Load Distribution Factor Study..........................................................................47
5.1 Development of BRUFEM Input Files ....................................................................................47
5.1.1 Summary of BRUFEM Input Cases................................................................................47
5.1.2 Determination of Critical Longitudinal Truck Positions.................................................60
5.1.3 Running the BRUFEM Preprocessor ..............................................................................65
5.2 Summary of BRUFEM Output Files .......................................................................................68
5.3 Differences between SIMPAL Output and POSTNT Output ..................................................68
5.4 User Modifications Required for POSTNT Results ................................................................69
5.4.1 Modifications Required for Noncomposite Girder Models ............................................69

vi
5.4.2 Modifications Required for BRUFEM EGM Composite Girder Models .......................70

CHAPTER 6........................................................................................................................................73
Summary and Comparison of BRUFEM LLDFs.............................................................................73
6.1 LLDF and Slab Moment Results for Example Bridge 1 (Runs 1 through 5)...........................73
6.2 LLDF and Slab Moment Results for Example Bridge 2 (Runs 6 through 10).........................75
6.3 LLDF and Slab Moment Results for Example Bridge 3 (Runs 11 through 15).......................77
6.4 Comparison of BRUFEM Results with AASHTO and TxDOT LLDF Values.......................79
6.5 Using SAP2000 Output and BRUFEM Results to Calculate a Bridge Rating ........................81

CHAPTER 7........................................................................................................................................85
conclusions and recommendations...................................................................................................85
7.1 Trends in LLDF Comparisons .................................................................................................85
7.2 Recommendations for Using SAP2000 and BRUFEM for Bridge Rating..............................86
7.3 Texas Permit Truck Database ..................................................................................................86

APPENDIX A: PERFORMING A LINE-GIRDER ANALYSIS USING SAP2000....................87
APPENDIX B: BRUFEM INPUT FILES .......................................................................................93
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................115

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Example Bridge 1 Transverse Section and Elevation.............................................................. 3
Figure 1.2: Example Bridge 2 Transverse Section and Half Elevation...................................................... 3
Figure 1.3: Diaphragm Layouts for Example Bridges 1 and 2................................................................... 4
Figure 1.4: Example Bridge 3 Section and Half Elevation ........................................................................ 5
Figure 2.1: AASHTO H and HS Series Design Truck Layouts................................................................. 9
Figure 2.2: Histogram of Permit Fees (excluding Superheavy Vehicles) ................................................ 10
Figure 2.3: Permitted Truck Length versus Total Truck Gross Weight................................................... 11
Figure 2.4: Maximum Axle Spacing Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy) ........... 12
Figure 2.5: Minimum Axle Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy) ............. 13
Figure 2.6: Maximum Axle Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy) ............ 13
Figure 2.7: Total Length Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy).............................. 14
Figure 2.8: Total Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy) ............................. 14
Figure 2.9: Total Weight Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only....................................................... 15
Figure 2.10: Total Length Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only ....................................................... 16
Figure 2.11: Maximum Axle Weight Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only...................................... 16
Figure 2.12: Maximum Axle Spacing Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only..................................... 17
Figure 2.13: Number of Axles on Superheavy Vehicles Histogram.......................................................... 17
Figure 3.1: Loading, Shear, and Moment Diagrams for HS-20 Truck at Critical Moment Location
on a 100-Foot Simple Span.................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2: Example for Calculating a Trucks Center of Gravity........................................................... 21
Figure 3.3: Maximum Simple Span H15-44 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle Weight
Excluding Superheavy Vehicles ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.4: Maximum Simple Span HS20-44 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle Weight
Excluding Superheavy Vehicles ............................................................................................ 25
Superheavy Vehicles Only..................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.7: TxDOT Database Vehicle Record #21 Mobile Crane..................................................... 27

viii
Figure 3.8: AASHTO H-Series and HS-Series Moment Ratio Conversion Chart on Simple Spans of
Varied Length ........................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 3.9: Three Continuous Girder Bridge Models with Constant Cross Section ................................ 32
Figure 3.10: Maximum Continuous Span Positive H15 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle
Weight Superheavy Vehicles Only..................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.11: Maximum Continuous Span Negative H15 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle
Figure 3.12: Maximum Continuous Span Positive HS20 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle
Figure 3.13: Maximum Continuous Span Negative HS20 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total Vehicle
Figure 3.14: Three Continuous Girder Bridge Models with Modified Negative Moment Region Cross
Section ................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 3.15: Maximum Continuous Span Positive HS20 Moment Ratio versus Max. Axle Weight
Figure 3.16: Maximum Continuous Span Negative HS20 Moment Ratio versus Max. Axle Spacing
Figure 3.17: Superheavy Truck Record #213 Producing Max. Positive Moment Ratio............................ 38
Figure 3.18: Superheavy Truck Record #205 Producing Max. Negative Moment Ratio .......................... 38
Figure 4.1: Exterior Girder LRFD LLDF Lever Rule........................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2: Exterior Girder Moment Distribution Factor Rigid Body .................................................. 44
Figure 4.3: TxDOT Reduction Factor Gage Definition ........................................................................... 46
Figure 5.1: BRUFEM Standard H20-44 Wheel Configuration................................................................ 49
Figure 5.2: BRUFEM Standard HS20-44 Wheel Configuration.............................................................. 49
Figure 5.3: BRUFEM Vehicle #18 Wheel Configuration........................................................................ 49
Figure 5.4: BRUFEM Vehicle #213 Wheel Configuration...................................................................... 50
Figure 5.5: BRUFEM Vehicle #87 Wheel Configuration........................................................................ 50
Figure 5.6: BRUFEM Vehicle #203 Wheel Configuration...................................................................... 50
Figure 5.7: H20 and HS20 Rear Axle Travel Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 1.......................................... 51
Figure 5.8: HS20 Rear Axle Design Lane Position on Ex. Bridges 1 and 2............................................ 51
Figure 5.9: Vehicle #18 Rear Axle Travel Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 1.............................................. 52
Figure 5.10: Vehicle #213 Rear Axle Travel Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 1............................................ 52

ix
Figure 5.13: HS20 Rear Axle Design Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 3 ....................................................... 53
Figure 5.16: H20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1.................................................... 54
Figure 5.17: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1.................................................. 55
Figure 5.18: Vehicle #18 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1............................................. 55
Figure 5.19: Vehicle #213 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1........................................... 55
Figure 5.20: HS20-44 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 2 ................................................ 56
Figure 5.21: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment in End Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2 ............................. 56
Figure 5.22: Vehicle #87 Max. Positive Moment in Interior Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2................... 57
Figure 5.23: Vehicle #203 Max. Positive Moment in End Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2 ...................... 57
Figure 5.24: Vehicle #203 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 2 ......................................... 58
Figure 5.25: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3.................................................. 58
Figure 5.26: HS20-44 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3 ................................................ 59
Figure 5.27: Vehicle #87 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3............................................. 59
Figure 5.28: Vehicle #203 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3........................................... 60
Figure 5.29: Vehicle #203 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3 ......................................... 60
Figure 5.30: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line in End Span of Ex. Bridge 2............................ 62
Figure 5.31: Maximum Negative Moment Influence Line at Interior Support for Ex. Bridge 2............... 63
Figure 5.32: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line in Interior Span of Ex. Bridge 2 ...................... 63
Figure 5.33: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line for Ex. Bridge 3............................................... 64
Figure 5.34: Maximum Negative Moment Influence Line for Ex. Bridge 3.............................................. 64
Figure 5.35: BRUFEM Model of Noncomposite Slab-Girder Interaction................................................. 67
Figure 5.36: BRUFEM Models of Composite Slab-Girder Interaction ..................................................... 67
Figure 5.37: Total Moment on EGM Steel Girder Section ........................................................................ 71

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Characteristics for Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3......................................................................... 4
Table 2.1: Permit Vehicle Database Summary .......................................................................................... 18
Table 3.1: Vehicle Record #21 Moment Values and Moment Ratios........................................................ 29
Table 3.2: Simple Span Moment Ratio Summary...................................................................................... 30
Table 3.3: Effects of Modified Negative Moment Region Girder Stiffness .............................................. 36
Table 4.1: Positive Flexure Region Single Vehicle AASHTO Truck LLDFs (Ex. Bridge 3) ................... 44
Table 4.2: Negative Flexure Region Single Vehicle AASHTO Truck LLDFs (Ex. Bridge 3).................. 45
Table 4.3: Single Vehicle LLDF Summary for Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3............................................ 45
Table 4.4: Vehicle Gage Values and TxDOT Reduction Factors .............................................................. 46
Table 5.1: Breakdown of 15 BRUFEM Runs on Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3......................................... 48
Table 6.1: Example Bridge 1 Analysis Results (Noncomposite) ............................................................... 74
Table 6.2: Example Bridge 2 Analysis Results (Noncomposite) ............................................................... 76
Table 6.3: Example Bridge 3 Analysis Results (Composite)..................................................................... 78
Table 6.4: Interior and Exterior Girder LLDF Comparison....................................................................... 80

xi
SUMMARY

Annually, state DOTs are confronted with thousands of overweight truck permit applications and must
determine the ability of bridges along these routes to carry the permit loads. This research shows the
benefits of performing more detailed analyses using SAP2000 and BRUFEM, rather than using the
AASHTO empirical equations, which were developed based upon bridge behavior under design loads.
Using these programs, lateral load distribution factors are more accurately calculated, giving better estimates
of the actual stress levels in bridge elements. Procedures are discussed, and research results shown, to help
an analyst determine which types of trucks will be likely to cause damage to various bridge designs.
Implementation suggestions for the efficient office use of these computer programs are also discussed. Use
of these programs will allow state DOTs to model the response and stress levels within bridge structures
more accurately, which will in most cases allow the bridge to remain in service longer.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
As traffic volumes and vehicle weights increase on the highway systems in the United States, the demand
placed on our bridge structures increases accordingly. At this time, it is estimated that about 18,000 bridges
located in Texas alone do not meet the design specifications mandated by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is
faced with the problem of evaluating the structural adequacy of the states inventory of bridges for the
passage of routine traffic, typical overloaded or oversized vehicles, and special Superheavy vehicles. This
process, known as bridge rating, is commonly done to calculate the live load capacity of a bridge structure
using empirical equations and other simplified design procedures. The AASHTO bridge design procedures
are formulated to allow an engineer to complete a bridge design in a timely manner. However, using this
method and its simplifying assumptions has drawbacks when an engineer needs to analyze existing
structures for load-rating purposes. This AASHTO approach to load rating is a useful first step in
determining the live-load capacity of an existing bridge, however, some reserve capacity often exists within
a bridge structure that is not considered when using the AASHTO procedure.
1.1 IMPORTANCE OF LOAD RATING OF BRIDGES
Load rating can be done using nondestructive field tests on existing bridges, but that approach is a time-
consuming process most often carried out in a research setting or on bridges with an extremely high
importance factor or with very unusual field conditions. The most common approach to bridge rating is
through the standards described within the AASHTO Manual for Condition Evaluation of Bridges
(AASHTO Manual).[3] These guidelines describe the processes for calculating both an inventory and
operating rating for a bridge structure. The inventory rating represents the live load the bridge can safely
carry for an indefinite amount of time. The operating rating represents the maximum live load permitted
to cross the bridge.
If a bridge is not capable of handling the loads it sees on a daily basis as shown by the results of the
AASHTO bridge rating, TxDOT, or the governing state DOT, must decide to either post the bridge or
close it based on the severity of its predicted under-strength. Every bridge that is posted, however, is also
required to be annually inspected, which is a financial burden and a time-consuming effort. Some
problems occur when an engineer uses the AASHTO approach for bridge rating. The AASHTO general
bridge rating methods are not valid for all possible bridge geometries. For this reason, special bridge
layouts are best rated using structural analysis software rather than AASHTO empirical equations. It is
important to realize that the AASHTO method of calculating lateral load distribution factors (LLDFs) was
generated based on bridge behavior due to loads from design trucks only. No provisions are made to
account for the wide variation of axle weights and spacings common to overloaded or Superheavy
vehicles. It is also important to note that the AASHTO bridge rating procedure neglects some possible
sources of bridge capacity in order to simplify and reduce the time required for analysis. One of these
sources neglected by the AASHTO procedure is the capability of the deck slab to carry a significant
portion of the total moment in a bridge structure. This deck slab component may become quite significant
in bridges with short span lengths. If a rating could be done that reflected the true bridge capacity without
costing the engineer undue time, it would prevent some bridges from being posted, would allow for more
efficient traffic routes for heavy trucks, and would also prevent the premature closing or posting of
adequate bridge structures that failed an AASHTO bridge rating.
Three example bridge designs are analyzed during this research program and used for completing a LLDF
comparison. The LLDFs calculated from analysis are compared with both the old AASHTO Standard
Specification LLDFs and the LLDFs calculated using the newest AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor
2
Design Specification (LRFD). The old AASHTO LLDF values are based on equations using bridge
girder spacing only, whereas the new LRFD LLDF equations are formulated as a function of girder
spacing, girder span length, deck slab thickness, and the longitudinal girder stiffness.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
The main objectives of this research were to determine if other tools were available to the design engineer to
supplement the AASHTO Manual and account for a bridges reserve capacities, while minimizing the
amount of extra time required to complete this process. The objectives of this project also include the
determination of actual force effects in critical Texas bridges resulting from passage of both typical
overweight or oversized vehicles and special Superheavy vehicles. The bridges deemed most critical by
TxDOT are steel I-beam bridges, simple and continuous spans. Comparisons of force effects resulting from
current analysis procedures and finite element analyses are also addressed. Finally, this project aims at
determining if current TxDOT overweight vehicle regulations are adequate to protect or possibly extend the
expected service lives of Texas bridges using the results of code procedures and analytical procedures.
This study will provide the information needed to assess current permitting regulations and their effect on
the States bridges. The results will allow TxDOT to modify their current methods of analyzing bridges
for overloads, when necessary. The benefits to the State of Texas are reduction of damage to bridges due
to overloads, extension of the service lives of bridges, and development of rational procedures to evaluate
implications of overweight vehicles on the States inventory of bridges.
A procedure using the program Bridge Rating Using Finite Element Methods, (BRUFEM) developed by
the Florida Department of Transportation, (FDOT) is presented and evaluated, along with a commercial
finite element program entitled SAP2000, developed by Computers and Structures, Incorporated.
BRUFEM was developed to help the bridge designer carry out bridge ratings in a timely manner. This
report examined the BRUFEM package and SAP2000 from the standpoint of the design engineer in an
office setting and makes suggestions on how to use these packages without wasting inordinate amounts of
time in the process. SAP2000 is used to carry out line-girder analyses of bridge structures as the first step
in analyzing maximum moment and shear effects produced by typical oversized and overweight vehicles
as well as the Superheavy vehicles. AASHTO design trucks and the oversized or overweight trucks are
analyzed using both program packages with results shown for three actual bridge designs.
1.2.1 Study of Two TxDOT Steel Bridge Designs from 1955
Two Texas noncomposite steel girder bridge designs from the 1950s are studied. One example design
(Example Bridge 1), is a 50-foot, simply supported span with right-girders (no skew). Example Bridge 1
is a noncomposite bridge design using four W33x141 A7 steel stringers (F
y
= 33 ksi), spaced 8 feet apart
to support a 6--inch concrete deck that forms a 28-foot wide roadway. The concrete specified is Class
A (f'
c
= 3,000 psi) with reinforcing steel allowable stresses set at 20,000 psi. The slab overhangs the outer
girders by 3'-7". The design truck used was the AASHTO H20-44 designation.
The second example design (Example Bridge 2), is taken from the same bridge structure as Example Bridge
1, but consists of a 195-foot continuous span portion of the bridge. Example Bridge 2 is a noncomposite,
three-span continuous right-girder steel bridge consisting of spans of 60-feet, 75-feet, and 60-feet,
respectively. Example Bridge 2 uses four W33x130 A7 steel stringers with 10" x 7/16" x 11'-0" cover
plates top and bottom at each interior pier. These stringers are spaced at 8 feet and carry the same 6--inch
Class A concrete slab. Both Example Bridges 1 and 2 are taken from TxDOT record drawings for the Texas
State Highway 71 bridge structure crossing Onion Creek in Travis County, Texas. Both of these bridges
were designed using the AASHO 1953 Standards and were selected to show the typical older simple-span
and continuous-span steel stringer bridge designs existing in Texas today. Transverse cross sections, span
layouts, diaphragm locations, and member sizes are shown for Example Bridge 1 in Figure 1.1 and for
3
Example Bridge 2 in Figure 1.2. The diaphragm layouts and sizes for Example Bridges 1 and 2 are shown
in Figure 1.3. Table 1.1 summarizes the relevant design data for both Example Bridges 1 and 2.
2'-7"
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
W33x141
Sym. About C
L
Transverse Section
6 1/2"
31'-2"
28'-0" Roadway
50'-0" (48'-9" c.c. Bearing)
12'-4" 12'-4" 12'-4"
Type A Dia.
Type A Dia.
Type B Dia.
Type B Dia.
Type C Dia.
4" 12'-4" 4"
7 1/2"
C Brg. (Typ.)
L
Diaphragm Locations on 50'-0" Simple Span

Figure 1.1: Example Bridge 1 Transverse Section and Elevation
2'-7"
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
W33x130 w/
Sym. About C
L
Transverse Section
6 1/2"
31'-2"
28'-0"Roadway
60'-0"(59'-4 1/2"c.c. Bearing)
19'-2"
Type A Dia.
Type B Dia.
Type B Dia.
Type C Dia.
4"
7 1/2"
C Brg.
L
L
C Bridge
Half Elevation for 195'-0"Continuous Span
Cover P's
L
19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6"
75'-0"c.c. Bearing
5'-6" 5'-6"
Type C Dia.
Sym.
L
about
C
10"x7/16"x11'-0"
Cover P (typ.)
L
(See Below)

Figure 1.2: Example Bridge 2 Transverse Section and Half Elevation
4

W12x36
3/8"P
L
Type A Diaphragm Type B Diaphragm Type C Diaphragm
L5 x 3-1/2 x 3/8
WT8x29
L3 x 3 x 3/8

Figure 1.3: Diaphragm Layouts for Example Bridges 1 and 2
Table 1.1: Characteristics for Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3
Example Bridge 1 Example Bridge 2 Example Bridge 3
Girder/Slab
Design
Noncomposite Noncomposite Composite
Concrete f'
c
3,000 psi 3,000 psi 4,000 psi
Steel Girder
Yield Stress
33 ksi 33 ksi 50 ksi
Design Truck H20-44 H20-44 LRFD
AASHTO Code
Version
1953 Standard 1953 Standard 1994 LRFD, Ed. 1
Roadway
Width
28'-0" 28'-0" 34'-0"
Girder Spacing 8'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0"
Minimum Slab
Thickness
6 " 6 " 8"
Deck Overhang 3'-7" 3'-7" 3'-6"
Span Length 50'-0" Simple Span
195'-0" Contin. Span
(60'-75'-60')
180'-0" Contin. Span
(90'-90')

1.2.2 Study of Modern Bridge Design using AASHTO LRFD Edition 1
The third example design (Example Bridge 3), is a structure designed according to the first edition of the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications. This design example was taken from an example design done by J. D.
Carnahan, M. A. Grubb, and J. L. Hartmann.[7] This bridge represents newly designed steel stringer
bridges and shows effects of a larger stringer spacing on the distribution effects within a bridge structure.
This modern bridge design is a two-span continuous, composite right I-girder design, with two 90-foot
spans. Example Bridge 3 uses four compact unstiffened fully composite A709, Gr. 50W (AASHTO
M270) weathering steel plate girders (f
y
= 50 ksi), spaced 10 feet apart. The concrete slab (f'c =
4,000 psi) spanning between the girders is 8- inches thick, with a minimum slab thickness of 8 inches,
and the reinforcement is Grade 60. The slab overhangs each outside girder by 3'-6" and the bridge is
symmetric about its centerline. The bridge structure provides a 34-foot roadway. The plate girders for
this structure vary along their length and are shown in Figure 1.4.
5
3'-6" 10'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 3'-6"
Sym. About C
L
Transverse Section
8 1/2"
37'-0"
34'-0"Roadway
Half Elevation for 180'-0"Continuous Plate Girders
2"
2'-0"
Varies, See Below
Brg. Stiff.
Each Side
Brg. Stiff.
Each Side
Cross Frame
Cross
Sym.
L
About C
37'-0"
Frame
16'-0"
63'-0" 27'-0"
7/8"x16" 1 1/2"x16"
Bot. Fl.
37'-0"
Cross Fr.
7/16"x36" 1/2"x36"
Web
63'-0" 27'-0"
Top Fl.
3/4"x16" 1"x16"
90'-0"c.c. brgs.

Figure 1.4: Example Bridge 3 Section and Half Elevation
These three actual bridge designs are used to demonstrate the benefits of using a refined analysis
approach recommended by this research work, as opposed to relying on the AASHTO Manual alone for
load ratings. Even though the structures focused upon in this report are steel structures, the principles and
approaches discussed in this report are also applicable to extending the useful lives of bridge types such
as concrete girder-slab bridges, flat-slab bridges, and prestressed/post-tensioned girder bridges. Steel
stringer bridges were studied due to TxDOT correspondence stating that steel I-beam bridges are deemed
most critical at this time.[8] These bridges have the highest live load to dead load ratio consequently an
increases in live load causes much larger increase in the maximum stress in these bridges than in heavier
concrete bridges and longer span steel bridges.
1.3 OVERWEIGHT AND OVERSIZED TRUCKS IN TEXAS
The Central Permit Office (CPO) of TxDOT currently issues about 30,000 overweight/oversized permits
a month. Of those permitted vehicles, it is estimated that about 10,000 are for overweight vehicles alone.
In addition to these vehicles, the CPO also issues permits to vehicles covered under House Bill 2060.
These 2060 permits allow vehicles to exceed legal gross loads by 5% and/or axle loads by 10%. With a
2060 permit, a vehicle is allowed to legally cross any bridge in the state of Texas, with the exception of
interstate highway bridges, whether the bridge is load posted or not. In fiscal year 1995 alone, over
13,000 2060 permits were purchased. With the recent North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), it is estimated that the number of overweight vehicles will continue to increase on the Texas
transportation system in the future.
For only a $75 yearly permit and $15,000 bond, vehicles weighing 80,000 pounds can be operated on
state and county roads designed for 58,000 pounds. Even heavier loads are allowed for agricultural
vehicles. NAFTA alone will tend to increase the number of trucks requiring permits on the Texas
highway system. Current analysis procedures based on AASHTO load distribution and impact factors
indicate that stresses from current legal loadings and wheel patterns can exceed 0.9 F
y
.
6
1.3.1 Related TxDOT Research Projects
Some current and completed projects sponsored under the TxDOT research program have addressed issues
related to overloads, permitting, and load rating. TxDOT Project 0-1266, Overload Permit Procedures,
has defined criteria for issuing permits for overweight vehicles on simple-span bridges of various types.
The formulae developed allow for authorization of higher permit weights without additional engineering
analysis. Some consideration of continuous spans was included in the project. The recommendations are
based on a direct application of AASHTO design procedures of HS type trucks. No consideration was given
to more realistic distribution of loads or for calibration to actual behavior. TxDOT Project 0-1323 addressed
the Evaluation of Weight Tolerance Permits Authorized in House Bill 2060. The routing concerns of
overweight vehicles have been addressed in TxDOT Projects 0-1482 and 0-1266.
TxDOT Project 7-2986 is ongoing to develop a load testing program and was started in September of
1995. The objective of the project is to develop a bridge load-testing program for the State of Texas for
assessing the load rating of a bridge. The intent is to establish procedures and evaluate the technology
available for conducting tests of bridges to establish load ratings and help maximize the service lives of
the States bridges. This report is sponsored under TxDOT Project 0-1746, which closely parallels
Project 7-2986, and is designed to study the effects of permitted overloads on existing structures. This
project is also designed to suggest additional analytical procedures to help maximize bridge service lives.
In short, Project 0-1746 attempts to do analytically what Project 7-2986 does experimentally.
1.4 BENEFITS OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A major part of the bridge rating problem is the determination of the lateral load distribution factors. The
LLDF measures how heavily loaded an individual girder becomes due to one vehicle or a system of
vehicles located on the bridge deck. Until recently, the LLDFs were obtained solely using AASHTO
empirical criteria. The finite element method of analysis can be used today to do a rational, three-
dimensional analysis of a bridge structure and determine a more accurate distribution of wheel loading
than that given by empirical criteria alone. At the start of this research program, a decision needed to be
made regarding the finite element program package that was most suited to bridge analysis and allowed
for a rapid assessment of analysis results. The program package needed to be compatible for use on a
personal computer to simulate the design office setting. The program also needed to allow users with
limited experience in the use of finite element programs to efficiently prepare models of bridges and
interpret the results. BRUFEM, a program package geared toward the analysis of girder-slab type bridge
structures, was developed in a joint effort between FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) over a period of about ten years. The BRUFEM package is a set of four FORTRAN programs
specifically developed to meet the bridge analysts needs in the area of bridge rating. BRUFEM was also
selected because its preprocessor allows for the rapid generation of a finite element mesh and allows for
the rapid modification of a bridge model when editing is necessary. SAP2000 was also considered and is
a very powerful general purpose finite element program, however, BRUFEM has many features built-in
that make it much more efficient for bridge engineers, and it also addresses some modeling concerns that
are unique to bridge structures. BRUFEM allows for shorter analysis times than SAP2000, and also
formats its output with the bridge analyst in mind.
The first step in the creation of BRUFEM was a computer program developed by FDOT with FHWA
titled Structural Analysis for Load Distribution (SALOD). The primary function of SALOD was to
predict the flexural LLDFs for design and rating of simple-span bridges. The use of SALOD has helped
to keep adequate bridge structures from being posted when they are in good condition, even though they
fail the rating criteria when the AASHTO empirical methods are used.[4] SALOD is a useful program,
however, to keep its database of influence surfaces a reasonable size, simplifying assumptions are made
when it models structures. Continuity of the girders, edge stiffening effects, skew effects, and other
possibly significant effects were not considered by SALOD. Thus, the BRUFEM system was developed
7
by FDOT. BRUFEM uses a system of programs to automate the rating of girder-slab bridges using a
three-dimensional finite element analysis.
The BRUFEM system has the capability of directly rating prestressed and post-tensioned concrete
bridges, reinforced concrete T-beam bridges, flat slab bridges, and steel girder bridges. All of the bridge
types listed may contain simple or continuous spans. Prestressed concrete bridges may be pretensioned or
pretensioned and post-tensioned. Bridges may be skewed and stiffening elements such as parapets may
be included in the model. Users can select from databases of standard sections and vehicle load
configurations or use their own data. Using a minimum of input, a finite element model is automatically
prepared using the BRUFEM preprocessor that can predict the dead- and live-load responses of bridges
much more accurately than simple straight line (or line girder) models. One positive aspect of finite
element analysis is that is allows an engineer to model unusual boundary conditions and geometries when
simple formulas are not appropriate.
1.5 OVERVIEW OF TASKS COMPLETED DURING RESEARCH PROGRAM
Many tasks had to be completed to develop the conclusions developed in this report. The first task
completed dealt with obtaining a large number of typical oversize or overweight permits from TxDOT
and developing a database of critical truck information that would be useful in determining maximum
force effects and trends in the truck records. A database of 119 TxDOT truck permits was developed that
represents the typical trucks permitted on Texas highways daily. Also included in the database were 19
special vehicles that TxDOT classifies as Superheavy. TxDOT classifies vehicles as Superheavy when
they have a total gross weight over 250,000 pounds (250 kips). These are special trucks designed to haul
large pieces of machinery or other long and extremely heavy items. These special trucks were used to
examine the effects of very heavy vehicles on bridges. The typical permitted trucks were used to study
the effects of less severe overloads that can occur on almost a daily basis on busy highways. These two
types of truck records can parallel the AASHTO definitions of inventory and operating ratings. The
inventory rating is designed to be used for the typical overloaded vehicles, while the operating rating is
designed to account for the special Superheavy vehicles.
Once the permitted truck database was developed, the analysis began using a spreadsheet program using
Microsoft EXCEL. This spreadsheet modeled the response of a simple-span line girder due to loads from
arbitrary trucks with up to 13 axles. A 13-axle maximum was selected because the typical overload
database contained trucks with 13 or fewer axles. The typical permitted trucks were analyzed using this
EXCEL spreadsheet program and maximum moments and shears were calculated for simple spans of
50 feet, 75 feet, 100 feet, 125 feet, and 150 feet. These maximum force effects were then compared with
those produced by four AASHTO design truck designations (H15-44, H20-44, HS15-44, and HS20-44).
This spreadsheet program was also used to independently check the results of the SAP2000 program,
which was also used to analyze line girder layouts.
SAP2000 allows for arbitrary axle spacing and weight without restriction of the number of axles on a
specific truck. Many of the Superheavy vehicle designations had more than 13 axles and could not be
accurately modeled by the spreadsheet program. SAP2000 was ideal for this type of analysis and
produced rapid maximum force effect results. SAP2000 was also required to do analysis of bridges with
continuous spans. The automated bridge rating program packages SALOD and BRUFEM, developed by
FDOT, were then utilized to develop finite element models to determine LLDFs for Example Bridges 1,
2, and 3. SALOD was helpful in positioning the critical vehicles for maximum effects on the three-
dimensional (3D) model. SALOD gives a location based on a simple influence surface database to
approximate the maximum response position, which is then a useful starting point from which the true
critical position can be found using BRUFEM. Moving the critical truck through a range of positions
close to the SALOD approximation allows a user to find the true critical position in BRUFEM. When
analyzed in BRUFEM, the worst force effect cases are studied and compared with AASHTO code values
for LLDFs. From these results, conclusions can then be drawn regarding the amount of conservatism
8
contained within the code equations, and therefore reserve bridge capacities can be shown to exist. The
usefulness of completing an accurate analysis is shown and conclusions are formed regarding the steps
necessary to perform a better bridge rating in a design office setting.
9
CHAPTER 2
TEXAS PERMIT TRUCK DATABASE
The first step in determining the effects of overloaded or oversized trucks was to develop a database of
TxDOT permitted vehicles that would typify the oversized or overweight vehicles allowed in Texas. Trucks
included within this classification are those for which TxDOT issues an overload permit after receiving a
permit application. A large number of these vehicles were used to analyze typical bridge layouts with
simple and continuous spans so that trends could be identified and the most critical trucks earmarked.
These permitted trucks include both the typical overweight permit applications as well as the TxDOT
Superheavy vehicle classification permits, a total of 138 trucks. The database that was compiled contained
119 records of typical oversized or overweight trucks that were permitted between September 17, and
October 8, 1996, by TxDOT. The majority of these trucks received permits on October 3, 1996. These
records were received directly from the Central Permit Office (CPO) of TxDOT and contain permits for
travel within various regions of the State of Texas. All vehicles in the database were given a record number
for identification purposes, and the Record Numbers 5 to 123 represent the typical overweight permitted
trucks. Record numbers 1 through 4 are used to identify four AASHTO design trucks used during analysis
for comparison purposes. These four AASHTO design trucks are the H20-44, H15-44, HS20-44, and the
HS15-44. Schematic layouts for each type of design truck are shown in Figure 2.1. [1, 2]
32,000 lbs .
24,000 lbs .
----
---- 32,000 lbs .
24,000 lbs .
32,000 lbs .
24,000 lbs .
6,000 lbs .
8,000 lbs .
6,000 lbs .
8,000 lbs .
H20-44:
H15-44:
HS20-44:
HS15-44:
14'-0"
14'-0"
Varies 14'-0" to 30'-0"
Us e Spacing that
HS Series
H Series
Record 1:
Record 2:
Record 3:
Record 4:
10'-0"
Load Lane Width
2'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0"
Curb
Produces Max. Stres s es

Figure 2.1: AASHTO H and HS Series Design Truck Layouts
10
Included in the database of permitted trucks are 19 vehicles that TxDOT classifies as Superheavy. Even
though the 19 vehicles chosen by TxDOT for use in this project received permits in 1989, they are still
representative of the special Superheavy vehicles that are seeking TxDOT permits at the present time. A
vehicle with a total gross weight over 250 kips is grouped into the Superheavy category. The minimum
total gross weight of the Superheavy vehicles in this database is 295 kips, and the maximum total gross
weight is 989 kips. All of the Superheavy vehicles within this database have between 11 and 27 axles.
Superheavy vehicles are identified by database record numbers between 201 and 219. Table 2.1 is a
summary of the database.
2.1 FEATURES OF THE PERMIT TRUCK DATABASE
The TxDOT permit documentation papers contain quite a bit of information about the specific vehicle
being permitted. Information included in the permit truck database consists of permit fee, permit number,
load description, maximum width, maximum height, maximum length, gross weight, axle spacing, axle
weights, tires per axle, and tire size. The information categories most critical for this research project
were the axle spacing, axle weights, maximum width, maximum length, total gross weight, and the total
number of tires per axle. Route descriptions and special conditions are also listed in TxDOT overload
permit documentation, but none of this information was entered into the permit truck database. Total
TxDOT permit fees varied quite a bit, with the average value of the permit fee equaling $168. The lowest
permit fee was zero dollars while the maximum permit fee reached $4,777.28 for these 119 overweight
vehicles. Some permits show a rough breakdown of this permit fee, but none of this information was
entered into the permit truck database. No permit fees were available for the 19 Superheavy TxDOT
permits. Permit fees were not a primary focus of this research, however, it should be noted that almost all
of these permit fees are quite inexpensive and do not provide a significant portion of the cost of damage
these vehicles cause. Figure 2.2 shows histograms of permit fee information for the typical overweight
trucks only.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 More
Permit Fees (dollars)
Frequency
Cumulative Frequency

Figure 2.2: Histogram of Permit Fees (excluding Superheavy Vehicles)
11
Many graphs and histogram plots were constructed to provide a visual description of the vehicles used for
these analyses. Most graphs are constructed with the typical permit trucks and the Superheavy vehicles
separated, since these vehicle groups are not alike. Figure 2.3 shows all of the permit vehicles together on
one graph and displays the relationship of each vehicles total length to its total gross weight. Figure 2.3
shows the division of TxDOT truck designations at a weight of 250 kips. It is also interesting to see the
range of truck lengths that fall within each of the TxDOT truck designations. The longest trucks in the
Permit Truck Database have lengths of 151 feet while the longest truck in the Superheavy Truck Database
is 335 feet. The four data points labeled Design Truck in the lower left corner of the figure correspond
to the AASHTO H15-44, H20-44, HS15-44, and HS20-44 design truck specifications.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Total Truck Weight (kips)
Design Truck
Permitted Truck
Superheavy Truck
Superheavy Permit Trucks Permit Trucks

Figure 2.3: Permitted Truck Length versus Total Truck Gross Weight
As Chapter 3 describes in detail, maximum moment and shear values were calculated for each truck,
along with design truck moment ratios, and included within the database. All information within this
chapter deals with the truck characteristics and their trends alone, with no listing of moment ratio values.
Chapter 3 describes the force effects produced by each of these trucks and compares these effects to those
of AASHTO design vehicles.
2.2 TRENDS PRESENT IN THE TYPICAL PERMIT TRUCK DATABASE
Both histogram plots and graphs are helpful in identifying trends and generalizing the information found
in the permit truck database. Some general trends that should be noticed are listed here:
1. All permitted trucks are heavier (total gross weight) than the heaviest AASHTO design truck
contained in the database, the HS20-44 (See Figure 2.3).
2. Generally, as truck lengths increase, so does the total gross vehicle weight (See Figure 2.3).
12
3. Within the permit truck database (excluding Superheavy), 93% of the vehicles have a maximum
axle spacing less than 50 feet. The maximum axle spacing is the largest spacing of the axles in
the multiple axle vehicles. The average maximum axle spacing for these vehicles is 32.6 feet
(See Figure 2.4).
4. The minimum axle weight on 88% of these permitted vehicles (excluding Superheavy) is less
than 20 kips. The average minimum axle weight is 14.0 kips (See Figure 2.5).
5. The maximum axle weight of 94% of these permitted vehicles (excluding Superheavy) is less
than 24 kips. The average maximum axle weight is 20.75 kips (See Figure 2.6).
6. Within the permit vehicle database (excluding Superheavy), 76% of the vehicles were less than
80 feet in length. The average length of these vehicles is 64.5 feet (See Figure 2.7).
7. Within the permit vehicle database (excluding Superheavy), 81% of the vehicles had a total gross
weight of 150 kips or less. The average weight of these vehicles is 124 kips (See Figure 2.8).
The heaviest record in the permit truck database (excluding Superheavy records) was Record 96,
transporting a Compressor, and having a total gross weight of 230 kips. The truck records with the
longest total vehicle length and the largest maximum axle spacing were Records 100, 101, 113, 114, 115,
and 116. These six records were all described as vehicles for transporting a Concrete Beam and totaled
151 feet in length. The maximum axle spacing that these vehicles used was 99 feet. The truck record
with the greatest axle weight was Record 21, for a Mobile Crane, which had axle weights of 27,000
pounds. For comparison purposes, the minimum total weight AASHTO design truck listed within this
database, the H15-44, has a maximum axle weight of 24,000 pounds. The maximum total weight
AASHTO design truck, the HS20-44, has a maximum axle weight of 32,000 pounds.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maximum Axle Spacing (ft)
Frequency

Figure 2.4: Maximum Axle Spacing Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy)
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Minimum Axle Weight (kips)
Frequency

Figure 2.5: Minimum Axle Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Maximum Axle Weight (kips)
Frequency

Figure 2.6: Maximum Axle Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy)
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Total Vehicle Length (ft)
Frequency

Figure 2.7: Total Length Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Total Vehicle Weight (kips)
Frequency

Figure 2.8: Total Weight Histogram of Permitted Vehicles (excluding Superheavy)
15
2.3 TRENDS PRESENT IN THE SUPERHEAVY TRUCK DATABASE
The most important trend to be noticed within the Superheavy vehicle category stems from the TxDOT
Superheavy vehicle definition itself. All Superheavy trucks have a gross vehicle weight over 250 kips
(see Figure 2.3). Some other important trends are listed below:
1. Within the Superheavy Vehicle Database, 79% of these vehicles weigh between 250 and
700 kips. The average weight of these vehicles is 515 kips (See Figure 2.9).
2. The minimum Superheavy vehicle length is 83.6 feet and 89% of the Superheavy vehicles have a
vehicle length of 225 feet or less. The average length of the Superheavy vehicles is 138 feet (See
Figure 2.10).
3. The maximum axle weight of 89% of the Superheavy vehicles is less than 50 kips. The smallest
maximum axle weight in these Superheavy records is 21.5 kips. The average maximum axle
weight of the Superheavy vehicles is 38.0 kips (See Figure 2.11).
4. The maximum axle spacing of 79% of the Superheavy vehicles is less than 60 feet. The average
maximum axle spacing is 39.7 feet (See Figure 2.12).
5. Within the Superheavy vehicle category, 74% of the Superheavy vehicles have less than 16 axles,
and 89% have less than 20 axles. Eleven axles are the fewest on any Superheavy vehicle (See
Figure 2.13).
The wider axle spacing and multiple wheels on an axle line of many of the Superheavy vehicles spreads
the loads more uniformly which results in more uniform distribution of the load to the stringers. This is
examined in the finite element analysis discussed in Chapter 5.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
Frequency

Figure 2.9: Total Weight Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Total Vehicle Length (ft)
Frequency

Figure 2.10: Total Length Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Maximum Axle Weight (kips)
Frequency

Figure 2.11: Maximum Axle Weight Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Maximum Axle Spacing (ft)
Frequency

Figure 2.12: Maximum Axle Spacing Histogram for Superheavy Vehicles Only
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Number of Axles
Frequency

Figure 2.13: Number of Axles on Superheavy Vehicles Histogram
The heaviest record in the Superheavy truck database was Record 205, weighing 990 kips and carrying a
bridge beam. The record with the greatest vehicle length was Record 212, measuring 335 feet in length
and carrying a petrochemical vessel. The vehicle with the greatest axle weight was also Record 212 with
an axle weight of 70.0 kips. This axle weight alone is almost the total weight of an AASHTO HS20-44
design truck, whose total weight is 72,000 pounds. It is easy to imagine the type of overload this truck in
particular could produce in a bridge designed for an HS20-44 truck configuration.
18
Table 2.1: Permit Vehicle Database Summary
Category Permit Trucks Superheavy Trucks All Vehicles
Number of
Axles
Min.
Max.
Ave.
4
13
7
11
27
16
4
27
8
Vehicle Length
Min.
Max.
Ave.
17 ft
151 ft
65 ft
80 ft
335 ft
137 ft
17 ft
335 ft
74 ft
Vehicle Weight
Min.
Max.
Ave.
75 kips
230 kips
124 kips
295 kips
989 kips
515 kips
74 kips
989 kips
177 kips
Max. Axle
Weight
Min.
Max.
Ave.
15 kips
27 kips
21 kips
22 kips
70 kips
38 kips
15 kips
70 kips
23 kips
Min. Axle
Weight
Min.
Max.
Ave.
10 kips
27 kips
14 kips
12 kips
20 kips
15 kips
10 kips
27 kips
14 kips
Max. Axle
Spacing
Min.
Max.
Ave.
7 ft
99 ft
33 ft
14 ft
117 ft
40 ft
7 ft
117 ft
33 ft
Permit Fee
Min.
Max.
Ave.
$0
$4777
$168
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0
$4777
$168

It is not difficult to see the challenge of the truck permitting procedure when looking at the huge variation
in the vehicles requesting permits today. TxDOT categorizes vehicles into typical and Superheavy
groups to help separate these permit trucks somewhat, but even the variation of vehicle characteristics
within each group is large. The purpose of developing this database was to help visualize the range of
variations in permitted vehicles on Texas highways. The next step in the study of these vehicles effects
on bridges is performing line-girder analyses on some simple bridge layouts using these truck records.
19
CHAPTER 3
LINE-GIRDER ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
A line-girder analysis is an important first step in bridge design, and can prove to be quite useful in bridge
rating and analysis also. For bridge rating purposes, line-girder analyses can be helpful in determining if
a more detailed three-dimensional (3-D) analysis is required. Arbitrary truck layouts can be modeled as a
series of point loads and moved across the bridge superstructure, idealized as one girder, to determine an
estimate of the total bending moment and shear demand required of the bridge. If these moment and
shear values are sufficiently beneath the nominal capacities of the structure, the line-girder analysis is
sufficient to permit the vehicle in question.
This chapter outlines the line-girder analysis techniques available and gives examples of how this type of
analysis can expedite the overweight truck permitting procedure. All line-girder analyses completed for
this project were done using both a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and the general purpose SAP2000
structural analysis program. The Excel spreadsheet was developed early in this project to analyze simply
supported bridge spans only. It was also used as an independent check of SAP2000s output results to
verify that SAP2000 was analyzing bridge structures in the manner required for bridge rating purposes.
After verifying the SAP2000 results, further analyses were completed for continuous line-girder bridge
layouts using SAP2000 only. All analyses involving trucks with more than 13 axles were also completed
using SAP2000 alone. It was deemed too time-consuming to develop a spreadsheet for these operations,
and SAP2000 allowed the user to quickly generate results for such vehicles and structures. All
continuous structures examined during this phase of the research were bridges comprising two equal span
lengths. The span lengths were varied in each model; however, each model was symmetric about its
interior support. This was done to identify trends in the results due to various truck layouts and does not
assume that bridges must conform to these ideal geometries to be analyzed in this fashion. SAP2000
allows the user to model any type of bridge structure, from single to multiple spans of varied lengths, as
required by the analyst.
3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET PROGRAM
The development of an independent means of calculating maximum moment and shear response of an
arbitrary truck layout on a simply supported line-girder structure was important to the verification of a
commercial programs output. The spreadsheet developed for this project needed to be flexible enough to
accommodate trucks that varied in size from 2 axles to 13 axles. This flexibility would accommodate
every AASHTO design truck and all records within the Permit Truck Database, except for the Superheavy
vehicle records. The spreadsheet program was designed to allow for arbitrary truck axle spacing and
weight, and also accounted for various overall vehicle lengths.
The spreadsheet used an algorithm that marched each truck across the girders span at intervals
designated by the user. The overall truck length was calculated by using the individual axle spacing
information, and the truck was then moved incrementally, and analysis completed at each step, until the
last truck axle was off the end of the span. A separate algorithm was developed to determine, at each
interval, whether each axle was on or off the span. In the shorter span bridges, some truck axle spacings
were such that some axles were already across the span while some others were not yet beginning to
travel onto the span. The algorithm used in the spreadsheet program determined each axles position and
created a list of effective axles at each position in the trucks incremental movement across the span.
Using these effective axles, the principles of statics were used on these determinate structures to
calculate the reaction forces at each end of the girder. Moments were summed about each end of the span
to calculate the reactions at the opposite end due to the position of the effective truck axles. Since this
20
analysis involves live loads only (permitted truckloads), the shape of the live load shear diagram can be
determined. Since point loads are the only applied loads of interest on the girder, (no girder self-weight
considerations, for example), the slope of the shear diagram is zero between these point loads. Further,
we can check the shear diagram for correctness by making sure the values of internal shear match the
reaction forces at each end of the line girder.
Internal moments are easily calculated after determining the shear diagram, using the principle that the
area under the shear diagram is the change in moment from point to point. The value of moment at each
end of the simply supported beam is known to be zero by definition of a simply supported span. This also
gives a check of the moment calculation procedure, by making sure the moment at each end resolves to
zero. It should be noted that the rear axle spacing of the AASHTO HS20-44 vehicle is variable between
14 and 30 feet. The 14-foot spacing is used in this example because it produces maximum moment and
shear effects on these simple spans (See Figure 3.1).
8 k 32 k
C Span
L
33.7' 14' 14' 38.3'
34.30 kips
32 k
37.70 kips
100' Simple Span
34.30 kips
26.30 kips
-5.70 kips
-37.70 kips
Shear
Moment
1155.8 k-ft
1523.9 k-ft
1444.1 k-ft
0 k-ft
0 k-ft
47.7' 47.7'
2.3' 2.3'
C.G.
Diagram
Diagram
Moment
Maximum
Location
Truck's
Max. M:

Figure 3.1: Loading, Shear, and Moment Diagrams for HS-20 Truck at Critical Moment
Location on a 100-Foot Simple Span
These shear and moment diagrams are calculated at each interval of truck position to try and capture the point
at which each truck produces maximum shear and moment values. Increment sizes are important when
completing these calculations since one can specify too large an increment and miss the point where maximum
shears and moments occur within the span. Maximum shear effects are produced on a simple span when an
axle is located directly above a support. For that reason, we can be sure to capture this position by specifying
an interval that is a common factor of each axle spacing. If, for example, the truck axle spacings are all even
numbers (in feet), we could simply use 2-foot segments as the spreadsheet increment and be sure to capture the
maximum shear effect on the span. Unfortunately, the maximum moment positions are not as easy to pinpoint,
especially when continuous spans or many truck axles are concerned.
On a simple span, if all truck axles are on the bridge simultaneously, the location of the truck that causes
the maximum moment effect can be calculated by first finding the center of gravity of the vehicles axles.
An example of how this is done is shown in Figure 3.2.
21
18.67'
14'
Layout
HS20-44
8

k
i
p
s
9.33' 4.67'
C.G.
HS20
3
2

k
i
p
s
3
2

k
i
p
s
Truck C.G. Location = (1344 k-ft / 72 k) = 18.67 ft from Front Axle
Sum = 72 k
Axle Load
8 kips
32 kips
32 kips
Determination of the HS20 Truck's Center of Gravity
Rear Axle
Middle Axle
Front Axle
Front Axle
Dis tance from
14'
28'
0'
Sum = 1344 k-ft
Load x Dis t.
448 k-ft
896 k-ft
0 k-ft
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e
R
e
a
r

A
x
l
e

Figure 3.2: Example for Calculating a Trucks Center of Gravity
If a vehicle is too long for all axles to fit on the bridge simultaneously, this statement must be modified.
In that case, the maximum moment can be calculated by finding the center of gravity locations of each set
of effective axles on the bridge span as the truck is marched along the structure. The maximum
moment occurs within the span when the centerline of the span is midway between the center of gravity
of the effective point loads and the nearest concentrated load. Stated in another way, the maximum
bending moment produced by moving concentrated loads occurs under one of the loads when that load is
as far from one support as the center of gravity of all the moving loads on the beam is from the other
support. These statements are better understood while looking at the illustration shown in Figure 3.1.
Due to the rapid personal computer processors available today, it was possible to use very small
increments throughout these spreadsheet analyses (between 1/10 of a foot and 1/6 of a foot) to avoid the
possibility of missing these maximum moment positions by more than 0.07 feet. The fractions are shown
to emphasize the point made earlier describing the common factor technique to find maximum shear
response. These increments are quite small, but only a small amount of extra processing time was added
to the analysis of each vehicle in this manner, and this minimized the errors in the spreadsheet values for
the maximum shears and moments recorded.
3.2 SELECTION OF SAP2000 FOR BRIDGE ANALYSIS PURPOSES
The spreadsheet program was not developed to handle all possible cases of bridge geometry and truck
layout. Instead, a commercial program, SAP2000 was utilized to study a wider range of bridges and
permit trucks. Many general purpose structural analysis programs are available to the bridge engineer,
but very few possess a built-in interface for bridge-related analyses with a finite-element package.
SAP2000 NonLinear Version 6.13 does handle bridge-related topics such as influence lines, truck
induced moment and shear envelopes, and AASHTO travel lane concepts.[6] AASHTO vehicles, along
with typical CALTRANS vehicles and common railroad loadings, are available as standard vehicles
within the program. Also available are user-defined vehicle generation techniques that allow the engineer
22
to quickly input an uncommon or even Superheavy vehicle for permitting purposes. It was for this reason
that SAP2000 was the program selected for this project, along with SAP2000s user-friendly finite-
element preprocessor. A detailed step-by-step tutorial for performing a SAP2000 line-girder analysis is
available in Appendix A.
3.2.1 Using Line-Girder Analyses to Identify Critical Bridges
Performing line-girder analyses are the first steps taken in the process of designing new bridge structures.
Using the principles of Lateral Load Distribution Factors, line-girder results are extrapolated to each
individual girder, estimating how much of the total bridge resistance must be supplied by each individual
girder. During bridge analysis, the analyst needs to obtain similar information. For example, assume that
the bridge in question is a two-lane structure, designed to carry AASHTO HS20-44 vehicles, showing no
deterioration or distress. We know, from the design criteria alone, that the structure is capable of carrying
at least two HS20-44 vehicles at once (since it is a two-lane bridge), when each vehicle is located in the
precise position required to produce maximum stress effects in one or more of the bridge girders. There
is also some amount of reserve capacity in the structure, but for now we are concerned with only the
minimum resistance available within the structure.
Reserve capacity can exist due to parapets, other additional stiffeners (such as curbs, railings, and
sidewalks), and the neglected moment capacities within the slab. This report will focus on utilizing only
the slab moments that are generated during bridge loading. The AASHTO LLDF calculation approach to
bridge design assumes all live loads are distributed to the girders only. Of course, due to slab stiffness,
slab moments are also generated under service loads, thus reducing the stresses in the girders. This effect
can become quite significant, especially in short span bridges. The effects of sidewalks and railings on
distribution factors in steel bridges are studied in a publication by Mabsout, Tarhini, Frederick, and
Kobrosly.
[10]
This report will focus primarily on the effects of the slab moments on LLDF calculation.
If a truck that is questionable due to its size or weight is to be driven across a questionable structure, it
would be helpful to know how severe the overload possibility is. A line-girder analysis of the structure
under the influence of a single design truck, compared with a line-girder analysis of the single truck in
question would quickly estimate the degree of overload possible. Calculating the Maximum Moment
Ratio of these two separate truck responses will quantify this overstress potential. The definitions of
these Maximum Moment Ratios for single trucks are shown in Equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. The
AASHTO H15 and HS20 vehicles are used for comparison in this report because they represent the
lightest and the heaviest of the AASHTO design vehicles, respectively. The Moment Ratios calculated
with these vehicles represent the extremes that exist for all vehicles in this database.

Moment Girder Line Truck AASHTO Max
Moment Girder Line Truck Max
MR Ratio Moment Max
.
.
) ( . = (3.1)

Moment Girder Line H Max
MR H Max
15 .
.
15 . =

(3.2)

Moment Girder Line HS Max
MR HS Max
20 .
.
20 . =

(3.3)

23
Since the example bridge under consideration was designed for HS20 vehicles, the HS20 MR would be
calculated. This HS20 MR represents the scalar multiplier of the AASHTO HS20 vehicles maximum
moment effect required to calculate the permit vehicles maximum moment effect. If the HS20 MR for
this example bridge was found to be 2.0, for instance, it would mean that the truck in question was
capable of producing twice the total moment produced by a single HS20 vehicle.
This calculation alone, however, does not guarantee that any of the bridge girders will be overstressed by
the vehicle in question. How an individual bridge girder is loaded is a function of a vehicles transverse
positioning as well as the longitudinal position where it will produce maximum moment. Obviously, a
vehicle placed in its maximum moment position longitudinally will load each of the girders differently,
depending on its transverse location. A truck placed nearest the curbs of a bridge will produce very
different distribution effects than a truck straddling the bridges transverse centerline. A wider vehicle
may produce lower girder moment than a narrower vehicle with the same weight due to a more uniform
distribution of the load to the stringers.
In order to quickly determine the moment effect to one girder, say the exterior girder, this MR could be
used with the AASHTO design LLDFs calculated for the bridge. These are conservative LLDFs, but they
can be helpful in quickly determining of overload potential exists. Chapter 4 explains the technique for
determining the AASHTO design LLDFs. For checking the exterior girder, the AASHTO LLDF
calculated for the exterior girders only would be used as shown in Equation 3.4.

) ( ) 20 ( ) ( .
20 HS AASHTO
M Girder Line x MR HS x LLDF M Girder Max = (3.4)

This maximum girder moment developed under an overweight vehicle could be compared with the
moment found in the exterior girder when the bridge is assumed fully loaded under AASHTO design
criteria. If the maximum moment the exterior girder sees is less than the moments produced due to design
loads, the vehicle in question is safe to pass. The vehicle may also be safe to pass if the maximum girder
moment is greater than the design moments. This is due to the safety factors built into the AASHTO
design code.
Using AASHTO Working Stress Design Criteria:

y
F DL LL 55 . 0 +
(3.5)

Using Equation 3.5, it can be demonstrated that extra live load capacity exists before actual girder
yielding would begin. This is also the case when checking using AASHTO Load Factor Design criteria.
Using AASHTO Load Factor Design Criteria:

y
F LL DL + 17 . 2 3 . 1
(3.6)

The live load multiplier in Equation 3.6 could be dropped in order to determine more accurate bridge
girder capacities near girder yield stresses. The AASHTO design methods automatically place excess
capacity into each bridge girder design. Under the passage of an overloaded truck, traffic patterns on a
critical bridge can be modified so that the live loads present on a structure can be limited to the
overweight truck only, and therefore accurately determined. Increase in the load due to dynamic or impact
effects included in the initial design are often eliminated by speed restrictions for Superheavy vehicles.
No speed restrictions are placed upon normal permit vehicles. The multipliers shown in the previous
24
AASHTO design equations are necessary to handle the day-to-day loading pattern uncertainty that exists
for each individual bridge structure designed. However, when the live load pattern can be controlled, as
in this case, these load factors could be modified so that true bridge capacities are not underestimated.
It must be noted that these approaches have used the AASHTO design LLDF calculation technique,
which is also conservative in nature. Using this approach, slab moments are not considered and specific
individual bridge characteristics were not used to generate the LLDF relationships. This report aims at
using finite element analysis methods to more accurately calculate true LLDFs to increase bridge capacity
estimates. By determining more accurate LLDFs, critical bridge structures, thought to be overstressed
when checked using the AASHTO design LLDFs, may have the capacities to not be overstressed. While
line-girder analyses are helpful in quickly identifying potential overloads, they must be combined with
refined LLDFs to estimate true bridge capacities.
Using the finite element method, overweight trucks can be placed in any transverse bridge location, or
where the actual travel lanes are located, rather than at the position that conservatively produces
maximum moment effects for each girder. The true loading pattern can be modeled on the bridge, rather
than using worst-case loading assumptions required during design. Chapters 4 and 5 explain the
procedures and benefits related to the finite element analyses performed on three example bridges.
3.2.2 Simple Span Bridge Line-Girder Analyses
To get an idea of the potential overstress levels the TxDOT truck database could produce, many graphs
were created to illustrate which vehicles caused the greatest maximum moment responses. Graphs were
produced using the maximum moment ratios plotted versus different truck variables to help identify
which truck characteristics affected the maximum moment each truck produced. These graphs were
constructed for both the simply supported bridge spans and the continuous bridge spans, and the
minimum weight (H15) and maximum weight (HS20) AASHTO trucks were used for comparison.
Permitted trucks and Superheavy trucks were plotted separately, since the maximum moment ratios were
drastically different for some bridge layouts. The most obvious moment ratio trend is visible when
plotted against each vehicles total weight. Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 show this trend, breaking up the
total vehicle database into H15 moment ratio, HS20 moment ratio, permit vehicles excluding Superheavy,
and Superheavy vehicles alone. The segregation between the typical permit trucks and the Superheavy
trucks helps identify the overload potential for the majority of permitted vehicles on the Texas highways,
separate from the rare Superheavy vehicles.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the relationship between total vehicle weight and the maximum simple span moment
ratio produced by each truck (excluding Superheavy vehicles) when compared with an AASHTO H15
vehicle (see Equation 3.2). Span lengths of 50 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet are plotted, to show the
increase in moment ratio as bridge span length is increased. For every vehicle, the moment ratio on the
50-foot simple span is the smallest, and the moment ratio on the 150-foot simple span is the greatest. In
other words, as span lengths increase, the moment produced by each permitted vehicle increases more
rapidly than the moment produced by the AASHTO H15 design vehicle. Looking at Figure 3.4, however,
shows that this rule does not exist for the comparisons with the AASHTO HS20 vehicle. For some of the
lighter permitted vehicles, the maximum moment ratio when compared with the HS20 truck was actually
produced on the shortest span, the 50-foot span.
25
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
50 100 150 200 250
50' Span
100' Span
150' Span

Excluding Superheavy Vehicles

0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
50 100 150 200 250
50' Span
100' Span
150' Span

Excluding Superheavy Vehicles
26
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
50' Span
100' Span
150' Span

Superheavy Vehicles Only

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
50' Span
100' Span
150' Span

Superheavy Vehicles Only

27
A good example of a truck that produced the maximum HS20 moment ratio on the shortest span is
Vehicle Record 21. This vehicle is described as a Mobile Crane and has 4 axles. Each axle load is
27 kips and the spacings of the axles from front to rear are 6 feet, 7 feet, and 5 feet, respectively. The
total length of the vehicle is only 18 feet, and the total weight is 108 kips. Figure 3.7 shows the layout of
Vehicle Record 21. The HS20 design vehicle has a total weight of only 72 kips, and is spread over a
minimum of 28 feet. Due to the fact that Vehicle Record 21 is both shorter and heavier than the HS20
design vehicle, this apparent reversal in the maximum moment trend becomes understandable. For these
vehicles, as span lengths increase, the moment produced by the AASHTO HS20 design vehicle increases
more rapidly than the moment produced by these permitted vehicles. These vehicles, which are both
shorter and heavier than the design trucks they are compared with, comprise only a small percentage of all
vehicles in the database. For most vehicles, the maximum moment ratios tend to increase as the span
lengths increase.
18'
6'
2
7

k
i
p
s
5' 7'
Vehicle Record #21: Mobile Crane
50' Moment
Max. Simple Span
1020 k-ft
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e
Total Vehicle Weight = 108 kips
Max. Simple Span
100' Moment 150' Moment
Max. Simple Span
2366 k-ft 3715 k-ft
Max. 50' HS20
Moment Ratio
Max. 100' HS20
Moment Ratio
Max. 150' HS20
Moment Ratio
1.62 1.53 1.55
R
e
a
r

A
x
l
e
2
7

k
i
p
s
2
7

k
i
p
s
2
7

k
i
p
s

Figure 3.7: TxDOT Database Vehicle Record #21 Mobile Crane
Another important trend to notice is the fact that the maximum H15 moment ratio is always greater than
the maximum HS20 moment ratio for each vehicle. This is simply due to the fact that the H15 vehicle is
a two-axle truck with a total weight of only 30 kips and the HS20 vehicle is a three-axle truck with a total
weight of 72 kips. The HS20 always produces a greater moment effect than does the H15 on these simple
span lengths, causing the maximum moment ratios to vary accordingly.
An equation was developed to allow an analyst the opportunity to extrapolate the maximum moment
ratios (MRs) on a simple span for all four AASHTO vehicles (the H15, HS15, H20, and HS20) from the
determination of just one of these moment ratios. If, for example, line-girder results for an overweight
vehicle were compared to those for an H15 vehicle on a simple span, this equation could be used, along
with a 1.333 multiplier, to find the moment ratios for any of the design vehicles desired. The equation is
plotted in Figure 3.8. The equation shown in Figure 3.8 is only useful on simple spans, but allows an
analyst the opportunity to generate all of the moment ratios by analyzing only one of the AASHTO design
vehicles. This graph allows an analyst the opportunity to create a spreadsheet to generate all of the design
truck moment ratios for a given simple-span bridge length through the line-girder analyses of only one
design truck and the permit truck.
28
y = -5.727E-09x
4
+ 2.771E-06x
3
- 5.049E-04x
2
+ 0.0419x + 0.2582
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Simple Span Bridge Length (feet)

Figure 3.8: AASHTO H-Series and HS-Series Moment Ratio Conversion Chart on Simple
Spans of Varied Length
The necessary equations are:
8 . 3 ,
) 20 (
) 20 (
Figure see Ratio Conversion
HS MR
H MR
= (3.7)

8 . 3 ,
) 15 (
) 15 (
Figure see Ratio Conversion
HS MR
H MR
=
(3.8)

333 . 1
) 20 (
) 15 (
=
H MR
H MR
(3.9)

333 . 1
) 20 (
) 15 (
=
HS MR
HS MR
(3.10)

Both the equation and graph shown in Figure 3.8 were developed by calculating the MRs produced by
four design vehicles using the spreadsheet program. MRs for the H20 and HS20 vehicles were compared
through simple division on span lengths of 25 feet, 37 feet, 50 feet, 62 feet, 75 feet, 100 feet, 125 feet,
137 feet, 150 feet, and 175 feet. The same procedure was used to compare the MRs of the H15 and HS15
vehicles. Using Microsoft Excel, these ratios were plotted, against simple span length, to generate the
best-fit equation shown in Figure 3.8. An example of how to use these relationships will focus on
Vehicle Record 21 (see Figure 3.7).
29
Table 3.1: Vehicle Record #21 Moment Values and Moment Ratios
50' Simple Span 100' Simple Span 150' Simple Span
Vehicle #21 Max.
Moment Line Girder
1020 ft-k 2366 ft-k 3715 ft-k
H15 Max. Moment
Line Girder
334 ft-k 709 ft-k 1083 ft-k
HS15 Max. Moment
Line Girder
471 ft-k 1143 ft-k 1817 ft-k
H20 Max. Moment
Line Girder
446 ft-k 945 ft-k 1445 ft-k
HS20 Max. Moment
Line Girder
628 ft-k 1524 ft-k 2423 ft-k
Conversion Value 1.41 1.61 1.68
H15 Moment Ratio 3.05 3.34 3.43
HS15 Moment Ratio 2.17 2.07 2.04
H20 Moment Ratio 2.29 2.50 2.57
HS20 Moment Ratio 1.62 1.55 1.53

Assuming we have a simple span bridge of 100 feet in length, it is possible to calculate the maximum
moment ratios for all four AASHTO design vehicles, knowing the maximum moment generated by only
one design vehicle. Assume we have already calculated the maximum moment response due to an H15
design vehicle. The maximum moment value for an H15 vehicle, shown in Table 3.1, is found to be
709 ft-kips. Since the maximum moment produced by Vehicle Record 21 is 2366 ft-kips (also shown in
Table 3.1), we can calculate the H15 maximum moment ratio (MR) as shown in Equation 3.11.

34 . 3
709
2366
15 . =
=
k ft
k ft
MR H Max (3.11)

It is not necessary to find the maximum moment positions for the HS15, H20, or HS20 vehicles and
analyze their moment effects to calculate their maximum moment ratios. Instead, the conversion ratios
shown in Figure 3.8, along with the 1.333 conversion ratio, can be used to quickly achieve all desired
maximum moment ratios. If we needed to find the Vehicle 21 Maximum H20 MR from the previously
calculated H15 MR, Equation 3.9 would apply. Rearranging Equation 3.9, the Maximum H20 MR would
be 2.50, as shown in Equation 3.12.

50 . 2
333 . 1
34 . 3
333 . 1
15 .
20 . = = =
MR H Max
MR H Max
(3.12)

which is equal to 2366/945=2.50, the moment ratio from the line girder calculations.
At this point, both H-series trucks MRs have been found, and the HS-series trucks MRs are desired.
First, we need to determine the conversion value from the graph in Figure 3.8. Since the bridge in
question is 100 feet in length, we can either substitute 100 for variable x in the equation, or read the
value from the graph directly. The conversion value is found to be 1.61. Using Equation 3.7, the
Maximum Vehicle 21 HS20 MR is 1.55. Equation 3.13 illustrates this conversion.
30

55 . 1
61 . 1
50 . 2
61 . 1
20 .
20 . = = =
MR H Max
MR HS Max

(3.13)

Finally, for the HS15 conversion, the same conversion ratio of 1.61 is utilized, since it is a function of
span length alone. Since the maximum H15 MR has been determined to be 3.34, it can be used, along
with the graph in Figure 3.8 to determine the Maximum Vehicle 21 HS15 MR. Using Equation 3.8, the
Maximum Vehicle 21 HS15 MR is 2.07. Equation 3.14 illustrates this conversion.

07 . 2
61 . 1
34 . 3
61 . 1
15 .
15 . = = =
MR H Max
MR HS Max

(3.14)

The MRs given at the bottom of Table 3.1 for this 100-foot span are calculated from line-girder analysis.
The equation shown in Figure 3.8 can be easily programmed into a spreadsheet and utilized for span
lengths between 24 and 170 feet. It is important to remember that the Equation shown in Figure 3.8 is
valid only for simple span bridges. The 1.333 multiplier, however, that converts MRs between H15 and
H20 vehicles and HS15 and HS20 vehicles is valid for all MRs calculated on any structure. This is true
because the number and spacing of axles for each H-series and HS-series truck are constant when
compared with each other, and the axle weights of each series are all related by 1.333 to each other. With
the number of axles and the axle spacing the same, increasing or decreasing each axles weight by a scalar
will change the moment produced by those vehicles by the same scalar.
Another important statistic to look at when trying to decipher the overload potential of all the vehicles in
this database is the maximum, minimum, and average moment ratio values produced on varied span
lengths. This information helps to identify which groups of vehicles are most likely to be critical, and the
expected range of moment ratios that could be produced. Table 3.2 shows this data for all TxDOT
database vehicles on simple spans of 50, 100, and 150 feet.
Table 3.2: Simple Span Moment Ratio Summary
Permit Superheavy All

50'
Span
100'
Span
150'
Span
50'
Span
100'
Span
150'
Span
50'
Span
100'
Span
150'
Span
Min. 1.29 1.78 2.17 2.32 3.98 4.81 1.29 1.78 2.17
Max. 3.27 4.19 4.98 10.7 14.3 16.1 10.7 14.3 16.1
H15
MR
Ave. 2.05 2.64 3.07 5.73 8.12 9.67 2.55 3.38 3.97
Min. 0.91 1.10 1.29 1.65 2.46 2.87 0.91 1.10 1.29
Max. 2.32 2.60 2.97 7.61 8.88 9.58 7.61 8.88 9.58
HS15
MR
Ave. 1.45 1.64 1.83 4.07 5.03 5.77 1.81 2.10 2.37
Min. 0.96 1.33 1.63 1.74 2.98 3.61 0.96 1.33 1.63
Max. 2.45 3.14 3.73 8.04 10.8 12.1 8.04 10.8 12.1
H20
MR
Ave. 1.54 1.98 2.30 4.30 6.09 7.25 1.91 2.54 2.97
Min. 0.68 0.83 0.97 1.24 1.85 2.15 0.68 0.83 0.97
Max. 1.74 1.95 2.23 5.71 6.66 7.19 5.71 6.66 7.19
HS20
MR
Ave. 1.09 1.23 1.37 3.05 3.78 4.32 1.36 1.57 1.77
31
Table 3.2 shows that for the majority of permitted vehicles (excluding Superheavy vehicles), the average
moment ratios are under 2.5, except for the 100-foot or longer spans designed for an H15 truck. This
shows that for the average permit trucks, on a structure with at least two lanes, it is unlikely that any
overload potential exists. It is also unlikely that a 100-foot or longer simple-span bridge would be
designed for the lightest H15 trucks, making the average permitted vehicles safe to travel over bridges
designed for anything heavier than the H15 design vehicle. Bridges designed for the HS20 truck all have a
maximum ratio below 2.2 for the permit trucks indicating these bridges would not be damaged by these
permit vehicles. The results shown in Table 3.2 do not include the effect of the live to dead load ratio
upon bridge performance. The longer spans typically have a lower live load to dead load ratio which
allows them to sustain without damage a higher live load moment ratio than a shorter span bridge.
The largest overload potential exists with the Superheavy vehicle designations, with the worst vehicle in
this database producing 6.7 times the maximum moment of an HS20 vehicle on a 100-foot simple span
and 7.19 times an HS20 maximum moment on a 150-foot span. These Superheavy vehicles create an
average of 3.8 times the maximum moment of an HS20 vehicle on a 100-foot span, the heaviest of the
AASHTO design vehicles commonly used. It is these vehicles that are the perfect candidates for analysis
using 3-D finite element techniques. The worst moment created by the typical permit vehicles was only
2.2 times the same HS20 vehicles maximum moment. In other words, the Superheavy vehicles are the
primary reason for needing a 3-D, finite element analysis. However, when the design truck used on a
medium to long span bridge is less than the AASHTO HS20, a 3-D analysis may be warranted for a
typical overweight truck as well. The best way to quickly discover this overload potential is to complete
a simple line-girder analysis, to quantify the maximum moment potential.
3.2.3 Continuous-Span Bridge Line-Girder Analyses
Just as simple-span bridges can be modeled quickly and easily as line-girders to quantify the overload
potential of certain overweight or oversized trucks, continuous spans can also be analyzed as line-girders
effectively. The results of these analyses must be viewed a bit differently, however, since continuous
span bridges contain more possible locations of maximum moment effects. Negative moment regions in
continuous structures are often the critical regions, but that is not necessarily the case when a span is
relatively long with short adjoining spans. In that case, a short, heavy truck may produce maximum
positive moment ratios that control when compared to the maximum negative moment ratios generated
over the girder supports. The same TxDOT Superheavy vehicle database used for the simple span
analyses was used for the continuous span line-girder analyses. This allows for a direct comparison of the
magnitudes of the moment ratios generated when compared to the same four AASHTO design vehicles.
It is not possible to analyze every type of continuous span bridge that exists. Continuous bridge
structures can vary greatly, having anywhere from two to over a dozen spans, with varied span lengths as
site conditions dictate. It is not necessary, nor is it the focus of this project, to analyze numerous types of
continuous span bridges to show the potential overloads that can occur due to permitted trucks. The
relatively simple analyses done for this project are merely examples of what can be done to any structure,
composed of simple and/or continuous spans. The analyst can use the same line-girder techniques to
model both types of bridges effectively, showing the flexibility and power of the line-girder analysis
technique. Two sets of symmetric, two-span continuous span bridges were studied, one set containing
three bridges with girders of constant cross section, and one set containing three bridges with increased
girder stiffness in the region of the interior support.
3.2.3.1 Symmetric Two-Span Continuous Bridge Structures with Constant Cross Sections
All of the continuous bridge structures modeled for use in this study were comprised of only two spans each.
Furthermore, each bridge analyzed was modeled with equal span lengths. The models used during these
analyses had span lengths of 50 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet. Also, only the Superheavy vehicles were used
for these analyses. Since Superheavy vehicles generate the greatest moment effects as shown in Table 3.2,
32
they are the best at showing the differences between simple span moment ratios and continuous span
moment ratios. Since Superheavy vehicles tend to also have longer maximum axle spacings, the negative
moments are often large. Separate sets of analyses were done on the same lengths of continuous structures,
in an attempt to generalize the effects of cover-plated regions in continuous bridge girders. Figure 3.9
shows the three continuous girder bridge layouts with constant cross section studied during this project.
L L
I = Io I = Io
L = 50' L = 50'
L = 100' L = 100'
L = 150' L = 150' Layout 3:
Layout 1:
Layout 2:
1 2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

Figure 3.9: Three Continuous Girder Bridge Models with Constant Cross Section
Figures 3.10 and 3.11 show the magnitudes of the positive and negative H15 moment ratios generated in the
homogeneous, two-span continuous line-girder analyses. When compared to Figure 3.5, showing the
comparable simple span moment ratios, it is quickly noticed that the maximum positive moment ratios for
both types of structures are almost identical in value. Some slight differences exist, however, the graphs
look quite similar, each showing the trend of increased moment ratio with increased vehicle weight. When
comparing the maximum negative continuous span moment ratios with the maximum simple span positive
moment ratios, one difference can be observed. The negative moment ratio values are about double the
values for the simple span positive moment ratios. These larger ratios shows the greater potential for
overstress in the negative moment regions of continuous structures when compared to the simple span
structures. Figures 3.12 and 3.13 also show the same trends when compared with Figure 3.6, except the
magnitude of the moment ratio difference varies from about 1.5 to 2 for these HS20 comparisons.
Figure 3.13 shows a very interesting trend in the maximum HS20 truck moment ratios, using the Superheavy
vehicle classification only. The bulk of Superheavy maximum moment ratios on these two equal span
continuous structures fall into a linear pattern when plotted against gross vehicle weight (GVW). For the 150-
foot span length condition, an equation relating these variables is shown as Equation 3.15.
546 . 0 ) ( 013 . 0 20 .
150
= GVW MR Negative HS Max
ft
(3.15)
Although this equation only gives a rough estimate, it is a quick approach to finding the maximum MR
over a support on a symmetric two-span structure. The Superheavy vehicles on the symmetric 100-foot
spans also show linear relationships between maximum negative MR and gross vehicle weight. For the
100-foot span length condition, an equation relating these variables is shown as Equation 3.16.
403 . 0 ) ( 0112 . 0 20 .
100
+ = GVW MR Negative HS Max
ft

(3.16)

33
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.10: Maximum Continuous Span Positive H15 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total
Vehicle Weight Superheavy Vehicles Only

0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.11: Maximum Continuous Span Negative H15 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total
34
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.12: Maximum Continuous Span Positive HS20 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total

0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.13: Maximum Continuous Span Negative HS20 Truck Moment Ratio versus Total
MR = 0.6671 0.0133(GVW)
35
Table 3.3: Simple and Two-Span Continuous Moment Ratio Comparison
SUPERHEAVY VEHICLES ONLY
Simple Span
Continuous Span
Positive Moment
Continuous Span
Negative Moment
50 100 150 50 100 150 50 100 150
Min. 2.32 3.98 4.81 2.18 3.72 4.59 5.17 8.66 7.79
Max. 10.7 14.3 16.1 10.1 13.8 15.6 16.0 25.9 29.5
H15
MR
Ave. 5.73 8.12 9.67 5.42 7.79 9.33 9.91 13.6 14.8
Min. 1.65 2.46 2.87 1.60 2.35 2.77 2.95 4.93 4.37
Max. 7.61 8.88 9.58 7.40 8.72 9.43 9.10 14.7 16.6
HS15
MR
Ave. 4.07 5.03 5.77 3.97 4.92 5.63 5.65 7.77 8.33
Min. 1.74 2.98 3.61 1.64 2.79 3.44 3.88 6.49 5.84
Max. 8.04 10.8 12.1 7.57 10.4 11.7 12.0 19.4 22.1
H20
MR
Ave. 4.30 6.09 7.25 4.06 5.84 6.99 7.43 10.2 11.1
Min. 1.24 1.85 2.15 1.20 1.76 2.08 2.21 3.70 3.28
Max. 5.71 6.66 7.19 5.55 6.54 7.07 6.83 11.1 12.4
HS20
MR
Ave. 3.05 3.78 4.32 2.98 3.69 4.22 4.24 5.82 6.25

These equations are valid only if the two-span continuous structure is symmetric with constant beam
stiffness throughout the bridge lengths shown. No relationship can be found for the 50-foot span length
condition, typically due to a Superheavy vehicles excessive overall length. Most short-span bridges
cannot hold all axles of a longer truck on the structure simultaneously, causing discontinuities in the
Moment Ratio trends. Superheavy vehicles on the 50-foot span length structures act like separate, shorter
bundles of effective axles rather than one truck with all axles effective.
Table 3.3 shows these same observations in a different format, however, the trends are the same. The
average positive moment ratios can be seen to be quite close to the values calculated for the simple spans,
while the negative moment ratios tend to be significantly greater. Generally, the continuous structures
moment ratios are controlled by the negative moment regions, assuming the layouts used in this project.
These results could change depending on the layout of the spans in actual bridge structures. However,
this information helps emphasize the important fact that the negative moment regions of continuous
structures often control the behavior of these structures under overload patterns.
3.2.3.2 Symmetric Two-Span Continuous Bridge Structures with Modified Stiffness in the Negative
Moment Region
The negative moment regions (cover plate regions) of each continuous span model were increased and
analyzed under loads from the Superheavy vehicles to see the effects of this stiffness discontinuity on the
generated moment ratios. The modeling of the region of increased stiffness near the interior support of each
symmetric two-span model can be accomplished in SAP2000 by using any two AISC rolled steel sections
that have a relative stiffness ratio (I
xx
value ratio) of 1.5. The 1.5 stiffness ratio was selected as an estimate
of a typical increase in stiffness in actual bridge structures. Figure 3.14 shows the three continuous girder
bridge layouts with modified negative moment region stiffness studied during this project.
36
0.2 L
Layout 3:
Layout 2:
Layout 1: L = 50'
L = 100'
L = 150'
I = Io
0.2 L
L =50'
L = 100'
L = 150'
I = Io
I = 1.5 Io I = 1.5 Io
L L
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
2
2
2
2
2

Figure 3.14: Three Continuous Girder Bridge Models with Modified Negative Moment Region Cross Section
Table 3.3: Effects of Negative Moment Region Girder Stiffness
SUPERHEAVY VEHICLES ONLY
Average Percent Difference in Moment and Shear Values Produced in Modified Girders when
Compared to Constant Cross-Section Girders
Moment Values Shear Values
50 Span 100 Span 150 Span
Pos. M
Neg.
M
Pos. M
Neg.
M
Pos. M
Neg.
M
50
Span
100
Span
150 Span
-3.4 +13.1 -3.3 +12.9 -3.18 +13.1 +1.3 +1.0 +0.9

Table 3.3 shows that generally, when cover-plated wide-flange sections or stiffer beam sections, such as plate
girders with larger plate sizes over support regions are used in continuous structures, the moment values (not
moment ratios) generated in the negative bending region increase an average of 13%. This table assumes the
symmetric two-span layouts used for this project, but it does illustrate how the stiffer sections of continuous
beams draw more bending moment into the stiffer region. The positive bending values for these two-span
structures tend to decrease an average of about 3%. Shear values tend to remain about the same, showing only
a 1% increase on average. It is important to note that these changes in the moments and shears occur with the
AASHTO design vehicles and the Superheavy vehicles. Therefore, the maximum moment and shear ratios
should not be significantly changed from the uniform stiffness values when looking at cover-plated regions of
continuous structures, or regions in plate girders with larger plate sections.
3.2.4 Truck Characteristics that Affect Maximum Moment Ratios
The goal of analyzing all of the truck records in the TxDOT database of permitted trucks was to
determine which characteristics of these trucks could be pinpointed as a major contributor to maximum
force effects. It has been established in this chapter that the key truck variable is total vehicle weight. All
graphs have shown the trend of increasing positive and negative moment ratios as the total vehicle weight
increases. The rates of these changes vary according to the AASHTO trucks these permitted trucks are
compared with, but the trends are constant across all plots.
Figure 3.15 shows the relationship between a trucks maximum axle weight and its positive moment ratio
on a continuous span. It can be postulated that heavy trucks that are short in length will produce the
maximum positive moment effects in continuous structures. Other factors make a difference in the
moment ratios calculated, however, the maximum axle weight is shown to be an important variable when
studying the positive moment ratio effects on continuous structures.
37
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
Max. Axle Weight (lb)
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.15: Maximum Continuous Span Positive HS20 Moment Ratio versus Max. Axle
Weight Superheavy Vehicles Only
It can also be postulated that heavy groups of axles separated by a large distance will create large negative
moment effects in continuous structures when these groups of axles straddle an interior support.
Figure 3.16 shows the relationship between a trucks maximum axle spacing and the maximum negative
moment ratio produced on a continuous span. It must be realized that the individual axle weights also
play an important role in this case, but the maximum axle spacing is an important variable for continuous
structure moment ratios. Figure 3.16 shows that the maximum axle spacing present on a vehicle alone is
not the key to producing maximum negative moment ratios. It also shows that vehicles with a maximum
axle spacing greater than 40 feet tend to generate large negative moment ratios. It is rare to see a
maximum truck axle spacing above 60 feet in this database of Superheavy vehicles.
Figures 3.17 and 3.18 are used to illustrate the vehicles that produced the maximum positive and negative
moment ratios on the two span continuous line-girder models. Their positions are illustrated near the
point where each truck would produce its maximum moment ratio. These figures illustrate the types of
vehicles that control the positive and negative bending regions of a continuous structure. The truck
producing the maximum positive moment ratio has many heavy axles closely spaced, making up the bulk
of the total truck load (see Figure 3.17). The truck producing the maximum negative moment ratio is
quite heavy and has a large gap separating the two groups of axles that comprise the bulk of this vehicles
total weight (see Figure 3.18).
Just as moment values and moment ratios can be generated for simple and continuous span structures, shear
values and shear ratios can also be generated using the same line-girder techniques. The examples shown in
this chapter illustrate the power of the line-girder analysis technique for quantifying the potential overstress
due to bending effects. These same principles can be used to quantify the overstress potential due to shear
effects. Shear calculations are quite important and can not be overlooked when analyzing a bridge for
overloaded vehicles, however, the examples used in this report focus on the bending moment effects only.
This is not intended to downplay the role of checking the shear stresses, but instead to focus on the
flexibility of the line-girder analysis technique for quantifying both of these important force effects.
38
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Max. Axle Spacing (ft)
2 50' Spans
2 100' Spans
2 150' Spans

Figure 3.16: Maximum Continuous Span Negative HS20 Moment Ratio versus Max. Axle
Spacing Superheavy Vehicles Only

7 @ 5.25' = 36.75'
13 k 4 k 4 k 61.5 k each
5.33' 21' 17'
80.1'
Total Weight = 585 kips

Figure 3.17: Superheavy Truck Record #213 Producing Max. Positive Moment Ratio

16 k
4.5'
14'
Total Weight = 987 kips
39.75 k
36.5 k each 37.9 k each
each
14'
11 @ 5.08' = 55.88' 47.5' 11@ 5.08' = 55.88'
191.8'

Figure 3.18: Superheavy Truck Record #205 Producing Max. Negative Moment Ratio
39
CHAPTER 4
AASHTO APPROACH TO LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
Accurately calculating the Lateral Load Distribution Factors (LLDFs) for bridges deemed critical for
overloaded truck passage is a challenging aspect of bridge rating techniques. While designers calculate
LLDFs from AASHTO design equations, bridge analysts would be better served by a technique that allowed
for less conservatism than what the design values generate. Consideration of a bridges slab moment
capacity, neglected in the determination of the AASHTO design LLDFs, would also help to more accurately
determine the stresses developed in a bridge structure under actual overweight vehicle loads.
Many uncertainties regarding the loading patterns that may occur on a bridge structure do not exist when
a permitted overweight truck is allowed to travel over a critical bridge. While it is important to include
the worst-case scenarios when developing loading patterns for bridge design, it is not necessary to
penalize the structure in this way while performing an overload analysis. Traffic control and strict
instructions to overloaded truck operators can limit the live loads acting on a critical bridge structure at a
particular point in time, allowing for more accurate estimates of load capacity. Controlling the transverse
locations of overweight trucks during their passage over critical bridges can allow the bridge analyst to
place the live loads expected in actual locations on the bridge slab, rather than always assuming the worst-
case locations for girder stresses.
The advantages of a three-dimensional finite element analysis are obvious when these conditions are
controlled. The question of whether or not the finite element analysis is too time-consuming to warrant
its use can be answered only when it is known which programs are best suited for finite element analysis
of girder-slab bridge structures. BRUFEM (Bridge Rating Using Finite Element Methods) is an analysis
package specifically designed to model these types of situations.[4] With some output modifications, as
listed in this chapter, the BRUFEM package can generate more accurate estimates of girder stress levels
much quicker than one would expect for a finite element package. BRUFEM uses a preprocessor that
prompts the user for the required bridge information, and then generates the finite element mesh required
for analysis.
The BRUFEM postprocessor, though somewhat primitive when compared with the graphical interfaces
available in commercial programs today, gives the information required to generate the actual LLDFs
from the model due to a specific truck location or a combination of many truck locations on the bridge
deck. The BRUFEM LLDF results are less conservative than the AASHTO design LLDFs, and can be
used in conjunction with the line-girder analysis techniques discussed in Chapter 3 to estimate the actual
girder stresses developed in all members of a bridge structure. By reducing the conservatism of the
LLDFs and accurately modeling only a single trucks location on the bridges deck, the apparent girder
stresses can be lowered, thus improving the capacity a bridge structure can carry, with minimal extra time
invested by the analyst. By utilizing spreadsheet programs and this personal computer based finite
element program, the procedures by which trucks are permitted can be improved and the capacities of the
bridges in question can be more accurately calculated.
4.1 USING AASHTO DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR LLDF CALCULATION
Using the AASHTO empirical equations for calculating LLDFs is one approach available to a bridge
analyst concerned about the performance of a critical bridge structure under the influence of an
overweight vehicle. This section will explain how the AASHTO design LLDF approach can be modified
to reflect the lateral load distribution pattern expected from the presence of only one vehicle on the bridge
slab. The bridge that will be used to illustrate these ideas is Example Bridge 3 shown in Figure 1.4.
Table 1.1 lists the characteristics of this bridge layout and contains information necessary for calculating
40
the AASHTO LLDFs. In summary, Example Bridge 3 consists of four girders spaced at 10-foot centers
with 3'-6" overhangs and a 34'-0" roadway width.[7] The structure consists of two continuous spans, each
of 90 feet, and has a minimum concrete slab thickness of 8 inches. This bridge layout has two critical
flexural design sections, one in the positive flexure region and one at the interior pier section, or negative
flexure region.
4.1.1 AASHTO Standard Specification Empirical Distribution Equations
Modifying the AASHTO LLDF calculation technique for interior girders to account for only one truck on
the bridge is done for this research to help eliminate the penalties that would be imposed during design for
the possibility of more than one heavy vehicle on the bridge slab at a given time. We are assuming that
the overweight vehicle is the only vehicle that is present on the bridge structure, which can be enforced
using traffic control or imposing travel time restrictions on the vehicle being modeled. Simple AASHTO
LLDFs used in the Working Stress Design Specification can be calculated very quickly and follow the
equations listed in Equations 4.1 and 4.2.[2] The older WSD and LFD AASHTO Specifications deal with
wheel loads rather than truck loads. Since we have computed moments due to whole trucks on line
girders, it is proper to divide the wheel load distribution factors by a factor of 2 to get truck load
distribution factors. This is equivalent to changing the calculated line girder moment from that of a
design truck moment to that of a wheel line moment.

7
S
LLDF Load Wheel Lane Single = (4.1)

5 . 5
S
LLDF Load Wheel Lane Multiple =
(4.2)

14 7 2
1 S S
LLDF Load Truck Lane Single =
=
(4.3)

11 5 . 5 2
1 S S
LLDF Load Truck Lane Multiple =
=
(4.4)
where: S = girder spacing = 10 ft

Since it is easy to calculate the multiple truck LLDF in this case, it is shown for use as a comparison later
in this section. For Example Bridge 3, these simple LLDFs are shown for both a single traffic lane and
multiple traffic lanes in Equations 4.5 and 4.6.

71 . 0
7
10
2
1
=
= LLDF Load Truck Lane Single

(4.5)

91 . 0
5 . 5
10
2
1
=
= LLDF Load Truck Lane Multiple

(4.6)

41
It should be noted that these AASHTO LLDFs were developed assuming the vehicles present on the
bridge structures were the AASHTO design vehicles such as the H15-44, the HS15-44, the H20-44, and
the HS20-44 vehicle layouts. Using these AASHTO LLDFs for analysis of very different trucks is not
the intent of the AASHTO LLDF calculation technique. However, these values will be used for
comparison purposes when the BRUFEM LLDF output is presented, and it also illustrates the techniques
through which the design LLDFs are calculated. AASHTO uses a lever rule to calculate the distribution
factor for exterior girders. The comparisons made to BRUFEM in this report consider only the AASHTO
interior values. The lever rule comparison is made with the LRFD values for the exterior girders.
The AASHTO LRFD Design Specification uses more complex equations to calculate these LLDFs in an
attempt to reduce the amount of conservatism built-in to the empirical equations based on girder spacing alone.
The LRFD Design Specification has incorporated multiple presence factors into the LLDF equations it uses.
These multiple presence factors will be removed from our LLDFs for this research because the overweight
trucks in question will be the only vehicles assumed on the bridge structure at a time.
4.1.2 Interior Girder LRFD Strength Limit State
The live-load distribution factor for an interior girder in positive flexure is shown in Equation 4.7.[1]
This equation holds for the situation where only one lane is loaded. AASHTO LRFD has a separate
equation to account for two lanes loaded simultaneously.

1 . 0
3
3 . 0 4 . 0
0 . 12 14
06 . 0

+ =
s
g
Lt
K
L
S S
LLDF

(4.7)

where: S = girder spacing (ft)
L = span length (ft)
K
g
= longitudinal stiffness parameter (see Eq. 4.8)
t
s
= slab thickness (in)

( )
2
g g
e A I n K + =

(4.8)

where: n = modular ratio of steel to concrete = 8
I = moment of inertia of girder alone (in
4
) = 9280 in
4

A = area of girder alone (in
2
) = 38.75 in
2

e
g
= distance from slab CG to girder CG (in) = 26.39 in
( )
4 2
in 130 290 39 26 75 38 9280 8 , ) . ( ) . ( K
g
= + =
(4.9)

AASHTO LRFD limits the values that can be used for two of the variables necessary for calculating this
moment LLDF. These limits involve the effective slab thickness, t
s
, the girder span length, L, the girder
spacing, S, and the longitudinal stiffness parameter, K
g
. These limits are shown below:
0 . 16 5 . 3 S
240 20 L
0 . 12 5 . 4
s
t
000 , 000 , 7 000 , 10
g
K
42
Example Bridge 3 satisfies all of these limits, along with the additional requirement of the bridge having
at least 4 girders. Using this approach, the interior girder AASHTO LRFD moment LLDF can be
calculated. The value calculated using Equation 4.7 must be divided by 1.2 to account for the Multiple
Presence Factor built-in to this LLDF equation. This approach of dividing by the Multiple Presence
Factor is the same as the approach taken by AASHTO LRFD to analyze the fatigue limit state. The
resulting LLDF is shown in Equation 4.10.
40 . 0 2 . 1 / 484 . 0 2 . 1 /
) 8 ( ) 90 ( ) 12 (
130 , 290
90
10
14
10
06 . 0
1 . 0
3
3 . 0 4 . 0
= =
+ (4.10)
4.1.2.1 Negative Moment Region Interior Girder LLDF
Since, in this example, the negative moment region of each girder is different in configuration than that of
the positive moment region, the calculation of the LLDF for the interior girders must be recalculated. The
term in Equation 4.7 that must be modified for the negative flexure region is the K
g
term. This K
g
term is
based on the section properties of the interior pier section of the girder. The term containing K
g
also
contains the span length L. To compute the distribution factor for regions in negative flexure, the average
of the adjacent span lengths is used for L. The value of L for Example Bridge 3 is therefore 90 feet, since
both spans of Example Bridge 3 are 90 feet in length. Equation 4.12 shows the calculation of the negative
flexure LLDF for the interior girders of Example Bridge 3. The calculation of the negative moment
region K
g
is shown in Equation 4.11.
( )
4 2
423 , 453 ) 66 . 26 ( ) 00 . 58 ( 454 , 15 8 in K
g
= + = (4.11)
42 . 0 2 . 1 / 503 . 0 2 . 1 /
) 8 ( ) 90 ( ) 12 (
423 , 453
90
10
14
10
06 . 0
1 . 0
3
3 . 0 4 . 0
= =
+
(4.12)

All other distribution factors at the negative flexure regions for the interior girder and for the exterior
girder are independent of the span length and the stiffness of the girder. For that reason, all other LLDF
calculations apply to both the positive and negative flexure regions of the girders.
4.1.3 Exterior Girder LRFD Strength Limit State
The AASHTO LRFD live-load distribution factors for the design of exterior girders are determined as the
governing factors calculated using a combination of approximate formulas, the Lever Rule, and a special
analysis assuming that the entire cross section deflects and rotates as a rigid body.[1] These AASHTO
LRFD methods have been modified to more accurately represent only one vehicle on the bridge structure
at a time. Each method is illustrated using Example Bridge 3. Multiple presence factors are not included
in the lever rule and the special rigid body analysis. These changes make this approach to calculating
these modified AASHTO LLDFs similar to the design approach taken for the fatigue limit state in the
AASHTO LRFD Specification.
4.1.3.1 Exterior Girder LRFD Moment Distribution Factor Lever Rule
The lever rule involves the use of statics to determine the lateral distribution to the exterior girder by
summing moments about the adjacent interior girder to find the wheel-load reaction at the exterior girder
assuming the concrete deck is hinged at the interior girder (see Figure 4.1). A wheel cannot be closer
than 2'-0" to the face of the curb. For the specified transverse wheel spacing of 6'-0", the wheel-load
43
distribution to the exterior girder is computed as shown in Figure 4.1. No multiple presence factor is
added to the calculated LLDF. This value of lateral load distribution (0.70) must be compared to the
values generated by the approximate formula and the rigid body analysis.
3'-6" 10'-0"
C Bridge
L
2'-0"
C Girder
L
C Girder
L
6'-0" 4'-0"
7'-0"
P P
R
1 1
LLDF = 7.0/10.0 = 0.70
As s umed
Hinge in
Slab

Figure 4.1: Exterior Girder LRFD LLDF Lever Rule
4.1.3.2 Exterior Girder LRFD Moment Distribution Factor Rigid Body Analysis
Assuming the entire cross section rotates as a rigid body about the longitudinal centerline of the bridge,
distribution factors for the exterior girder are also computed for one lane loaded by the design vehicle.
No multiple presence factor will be added to the calculated value since only one vehicle is assumed to be
present on the bridge and the layout of the loads for this calculation is shown in Figure 4.2. The equation
used for this calculation is shown in Equation 4.13. The LLDF calculated using this procedure is 0.61, as
shown in Equation 4.14.

+ =
b
L
N
N
ext
b
L
x
e X
N
N
R
2
(4.13)
where: R = reaction on exterior beam in terms of trucks
N
L
= number of loaded lanes under consideration (= 1)
e = eccentricity of a lane from the CG of the girder pattern
x = horizontal distance from the CG of the girder pattern to each girder (ft)
X
ext
= horizontal distance from the CG of the girder pattern to the exterior girder (ft)
N
b
= total number of girders (= 4)
Referring to Figure 4.2:
61 . 0
) 0 . 5 0 . 15 ( 2
) 0 . 12 ( ) 0 . 15 (
4
1
2 2
=
+

+ = R (4.14)

44
3'-6" 10'-0"
C Brid g e
L
2'-0"
C Gird e r
L
3'-0"
P P
R
1 1
5'-0"
15'-0"
3'-0"
12'-0"

Figure 4.2: Exterior Girder Moment Distribution Factor Rigid Body
4.1.4 Summary of Single Vehicle AASHTO LLDFs
The resulting positive bending moment distribution factors used to check the strength limit state when
only one vehicle is present on the bridge structure are shown in Table 4.1. It should be recognized that
the procedure used for this report varies from the AASHTO methods since no multiple lane loading cases
are checked and all impact factors are taken to be 1.0. The impact factor is omitted for these comparisons
because large overweight and Superheavy vehicles do not travel at normal highway speeds. It is rational
to omit the impact factor for this reason. Multiple lane loading criteria often control these lateral load
distribution factor values, however, since overweight vehicle analysis is not a design situation, these steps
have been modified to compare the values calculated using these AASHTO-based approaches and the
BRUFEM program. These methods are not valid for use in design situations and should not be construed
to be substitutes to the AASHTO design specifications. However, if a strong correlation exists between
these modified LLDFs and the calculated BRUFEM LLDFs, using these modified AASHTO LLDFs
would be a faster approach to more accurate LLDF calculation.
Table 4.1: Positive Flexure Region Single Vehicle AASHTO Truck LLDFs (Ex. Bridge 3)
Exterior Girders Interior Girders
WSD Empirical Equations:
Single Lane (S/14) 0.71 0.71
Multiple Lanes (S/11) 0.91 0.91
LRFD Equation N/A 0.40
LRFD Lever Rule 0.70 N/A
LRFD Rigid Body Equation 0.61 N/A
Governing LRFD LLDF 0.70 0.40

45
Looking at the results for positive flexure only, it can quickly be seen that using the AASHTO WSD
empirical equations places a severe penalty on the estimated moments in interior girders. We would
expect the interior girders to be able to share more of the applied loads to the other girders present in the
structure, therefore reducing the applicable LLDF. The AASHTO LRFD approach produces similar
exterior girder positive flexure LLDFs in this example, and produces an interior girder LLDF of almost
half that of the exterior girder. This more accurate approach to lateral load distribution is beneficial.
However, it may be more beneficial to use the BRUFEM program to reduce these values even further,
especially when the actual travel lane positions produce lower moments than the design lane positions.
The negative moment region modified AASHTO LLDFs are only different from the positive moment
region values for the interior girders (See Table 4.2). As explained earlier in this chapter, this is due to
the increased girder stiffness in the negative moment region, and is illustrated in Equations 4.11 and 4.12.
Table 4.2: Negative Flexure Region Single Vehicle AASHTO Truck LLDFs (Ex. Bridge 3)
Exterior Girders Interior Girders
WSD Empirical Equations:
Single Lane (S/14) 0.71 0.71
Multiple Lanes (S/11) 0.91 0.91
LRFD Equation N/A 0.42
LRFD Lever Rule 0.70 N/A
LRFD Rigid Body Equation 0.61 N/A
Governing LRFD LLDF 0.70 0.42

The positive and negative moment regions LLDFs were calculated for the two other example bridges.
Table 4.3 lists the modified AASHTO LLDFs for each example bridge.
Table 4.3: Single Vehicle LLDF Summary for Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3
Bridge 1 Bridge 2 Bridge 3
(+ M) 60 (+M) (-M) (75 +M) (+M) (-M)
Empirical Equations
Single Lane 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.71 0.71
Multiple Lanes 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.91 0.91
LRFD Interior
Girder LLDF
0.45 0.41 0.41 0.38 0.40 0.42
LRFD Lever Rule 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.70 0.70
LRFD Rigid Body
Equation
0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.61
Exterior Girder
LLDF
0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.70 0.70

46
4.1.4.1 TxDOT Reduction of AASHTO Design LLDFs for Overloads
The current TxDOT approach to permitting overloads on Texas bridges uses the AASHTO Design
LLDFs with a reduction based on the overload vehicles maximum axle gage. The reduction factor is
multiplied by the AASHTO Design LLDF to create what this report calls a TxDOT Reduction Factor.
For a definition of the term gage, see Figure 4.3. The TxDOT reduction value equation is shown in
Equation 4.15.[9] Table 4.4 lists the gage values for the overload vehicles used for analysis in this report.
No gage values are listed for AASHTO Design Vehicles.
GAGE
REAR AXLE OF VEHICLE

Figure 4.3: TxDOT Reduction Factor Gage Definition

=
30
2 . 1
Gage
factor reduction TxDOT (4.15)

Table 4.4: Vehicle Gage Values and TxDOT Reduction Factors
Vehicle Record Vehicle Gage TxDOT Reduction Factor
Veh. #18 7.0 ft 0.97
Veh. #87 7.0 ft 0.97
Veh. #203 15.08 ft 0.70
Veh. #213 16.75 ft 0.64
47
CHAPTER 5
BRUFEM LATERAL LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR STUDY
The next step in the comparison process of these modified AASHTO LLDFs and the finite element LLDFs
is generating the input files required of the BRUFEM analysis package. It is necessary to calculate the
LLDFs that exist at the particular cross-section in the bridge structure where the maximum bending stress
effects are experienced for the truck in question. Every truck has a unique position at which it produces the
maximum bending stress potential in the line-girder model. These positions vary and must be known
beforehand, since the LLDF information taken from BRUFEM varies along the length of each bridge girder.
The maximum negative moment effects for both Example Bridges 2 and 3 are seen at the points of interior
support. The maximum positive moment effects in all three of these Example Bridges occur at different
locations along the girder length, depending on the truck layout being analyzed.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BRUFEM INPUT FILES
In order to find the correct cross section of the bridge where these maximum moment effects occur,
SAP2000 can be used, along with its influence line output feature, to pinpoint these critical moment
locations. The BRUFEM suite of programs contains the SALOD (Structural Analysis for Load
Distribution) program for generating influence surfaces. SALODs primary function is to predict the
flexural LLDFs for design and bridge rating on simple span bridges. In order to make the database of
influence surfaces developed for use within SALOD reasonable in size, many simplifying assumptions
were made during the modeling. Significant effects not included in the SALOD program include girder
continuity, edge stiffening effects of curbs and parapets, skew effects, as well as others.[4] BRUFEM
was developed to supercede the analysis capabilities of the SALOD program, but BRUFEM has no
capacity to generate influence surfaces at this time.
The biggest concern during the analysis of these bridges under overloads is making sure to place the truck
loads the bridge will see at the correct positions to create maximum moment effects. During this research,
BRUFEM runs were made with trucks in both design lane locations and actual travel lane locations in order
to compare the results obtained. The longitudinal truck locations are a function of the truck axle layout
only. The design and travel lane transverse locations are independent of the trucks axle layout.
5.1.1 Summary of BRUFEM Input Cases
In all, 15 BRUFEM analyses were carried out, 5 analyses on each of the three Example Bridges. Both
AASHTO design vehicles and vehicles from the TxDOT Permit Database (including the Superheavy
vehicles) were used to analyze the LLDFs in each of these three example bridges. The vehicles selected
from the TxDOT database for BRUFEM analysis were chosen because each produced the maximum
positive or negative moment in the Example Bridges analyzed during this research. Both positive and
negative moment effects are studied to see if trends exist in the LLDFs depending on the regions of the
bridge most affected. Table 5.1 lists the characteristics of each BRUFEM run, including the transverse
vehicle location, longitudinal vehicle location causing maximum bending moment, and the value of the
maximum moment produced on a line-girder model of each configuration. Table 5.1 also lists the figures
illustrating the tested vehicles and their transverse and longitudinal positions. It must be realized that in
many instances, all of the vehicle axles are not on the structure at the time when the vehicle produces its
maximum moment effect. This is especially true for the Superheavy vehicle designations, since these
vehicles tend to be quite long.
48
Table 5.1: Breakdown of 15 BRUFEM Runs on Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3
Run ID # Vehicle Type
Transverse Lane
Location
Longitudinal
Location
Max.
M
LG

(k-ft)
Bridge 1:
Run 1 H20-44 (Fig. 5.1) Actual (Fig. 5.7) Figure 5.16 +446
Run 2 HS20-44 (Fig. 5.2) Actual (Fig. 5.7) Figure 5.17 +628
Run 3 HS20-44 (Fig. 5.2) Design (Fig. 5.8) Figure 5.17 +628
Run 4 Veh. #18 (Fig. 5.3) Actual (Fig. 5.9) Figure 5.18 +1092
Bridge 2:
Run 6 HS20-44 (Fig. 5.2) Design (Fig. 5.8) Figure 5.20 -470
Run 10 Veh. #203 (Fig. 5.6) Actual (Fig. 5.12) Figure 5.24 -3488
Bridge 3:
Run 12 HS20-44 (Fig. 5.2) Design (Fig. 5.13) Figure 5.26 -715
Run 15 Veh. #203 (Fig. 5.6) Actual (Fig. 5.15) Figure 5.29 -6835
5.1.1.1 BRUFEM Truck Wheel Layout Input
This section contains Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6. These figures show the axle layouts in plan
view of all trucks analyzed using the BRUFEM suite of programs. The spacing dimensions shown are the
values used in the program as either BRUFEM Standard Vehicles or User-Input Vehicles. The User-
Input Vehicles need to have input text files named Veh.dat created before running the BRUFEM
preprocessor.[4, 5] These input files are documented in Appendix B. If the user wishes to use a Standard
Vehicle, such as the AASHTO design vehicles, there is no need to create a Veh.dat file before running
the program. When using a Standard Vehicle, the user can interactively input the type of vehicle desired
while using the BRUFEM preprocessor.
49
Front Axle Rear Axle
14'-0"
7'-3"
11"
5'-5"
11"
7'-3"

Figure 5.1: BRUFEM Standard H20-44 Wheel Configuration
Rear Axle Front Axle
14'-0"
7'-3"
11"
5'-5"
11"
7'-3"
14'-0"
(may vary to 30'-0")

Figure 5.2: BRUFEM Standard HS20-44 Wheel Configuration
7'-0"
7'-0" 5'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0"

Figure 5.3: BRUFEM Vehicle #18 Wheel Configuration
50
Rear Axle
7'-0"
Front Axle
9"
1'-8"
3'-3"
4'-2"
6'-8"
7'-7"
9'-2"
10'-1"
17'-0" 5'-4" 21'-0" 5'-3" 5'-3" 5'-3" 5'-3" 5'-3" 5'-3" 5'-3"
80'-1"
20'-2"

7'-0"
4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 17'-0" 4'-0"
47'-0"
6'-0"
1'-0"
1'-0"
8'-0"

Rear Axle
7'-0"
Front Axle
9"
1'-10"
5'-8"
6'-10"
8'-3"
9'-4"
14'-0" 4'-6" 14'-0" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1"
55'-11"
18'-8"
5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 24'-0"
9"
19'-7"
8'-11"
9'-10"
7'-0"
7'-11"
3'-7"
1'-8"
2'-8"
5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1" 5'-1"
32'-6" 55'-11"
168'-4"
3'-6"
4'-6"

5.1.1.2 BRUFEM Transverse Truck Position Input
This section contains Figures 5.7 through 5.15. These figures illustrate all of the various transverse truck
locations used as BRUFEM input during this research. The Travel Lane positions were selected to be a
likely location where that specific truck would travel on the selected bridge structure. Using these
locations, rather than the Design Lane transverse locations, should prove to spread the trucks load out
51
over more girders. This also more accurately represents the loads position on the bridge slab, allowing
for the BRUFEM program to accurately estimate the actual stresses and LLDFs under these conditions.
The Design Lane locations place the vehicles the minimum distance away from the face of the curb as
defined by the AASHTO design specification. For the Superheavy vehicles studied in this research, the
travel lane is assumed to be a lane located at the centerline of the bridges in question. This is done to
distribute the maximum amount of load to each of the available girders in each structure. Also, since
these Superheavy vehicles are so wide, this travel lane is the one that would most likely have to be used to
cross bridges the widths of those selected as Example Bridges 1, 2, and 3.
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0" Roadway
3'-0" 6'-4" 4'-8"

Figure 5.7: H20 and HS20 Rear Axle Travel Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 1

3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0"Roadway
5'-8" 6'-4" 2'-0"

Figure 5.8: HS20 Rear Axle Design Lane Position on Ex. Bridges 1 and 2
52
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0"Roadway
3'-0" 7'-0" 4'-0"

Figure 5.9: Vehicle #18 Rear Axle Travel Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 1
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0"Roadway
2'-6" 5'-11" 2'-2" 3'-6" 2'-6" 2'-2" 5'-11" 3'-6"

3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0" Roadway
7'-0" 4'-0" 3'-0"

53
3'-7" 8'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 3'-7"
C
L
31'-2"
28'-0"Roadway
2'-3" 7'-7" 4'-3" 2'-3" 4'-3" 7'-7"

3'-6" 10'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 3'-6"
C
L
37'-0"
34'-0"Roadway
8'-8" 6'-4" 2'-0"

Figure 5.13: HS20 Rear Axle Design Lane Position on Ex. Bridge 3
3'-6" 10'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 3'-6"
C
L
37'-0"
34'-0"Roadway
3'-0" 7'-0" 7'-0"

54
3'-6" 10'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 3'-6"
C
L
37'-0"
34'-0"Roadway
7'-7" 2'-3" 7'-3" 2'-3" 7'-3" 7'-7"

5.1.1.3 BRUFEM Longitudinal Truck Position Input
Figures 5.16 through 5.29 illustrate all of the longitudinal truck positions used as BRUFEM input during
this research. Each position was found before going into BRUFEM to minimize the output created by the
program. This was done because BRUFEMs post-processing capabilities are limited and because of the
input technique required to analyze non-standard vehicles. When inputting a non-standard vehicle into
the BRUFEM program, it is only necessary to place the effective axles into the Veh.dat input file.
Another valid technique would be to input all axles of each overweight vehicle, and incrementally move
the vehicle across the bridge span to determine the worst moment effects. The incremental technique
would have to generate a great deal of output, due to the small increment sizes necessary and the long
truck lengths possible when dealing with Superheavy vehicles. It is much more efficient to let SAP2000
do this type of analysis in the form of a line-girder technique, as discussed in Chapter 3. Utilizing the
SAP2000 program to find the longitudinal maximum moment positions and BRUFEM to analyze each
exact truck position for LLDF calculation is the most efficient use of both programs. Section 5.1.2
describes the process by which each of these longitudinal truck positions was calculated, using the
influence lines generated by the SAP2000 line-girder analyses.

8k
50'
R
e
a
r
12.4'
Max. +M Location - Example Bridge 1
AASHTO H20-44 Design Vehicle
32k
14' 23.6'
F
r
o
n
t

Figure 5.16: H20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1
55
8k
50'
8.67'
Max. + M Location - Example Bridge 1
AASHTO HS20-44 Design Vehicle
32k
14' 13.33'
F
r
o
n
t
32k
R
e
a
r
14'

Figure 5.17: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1
24k
50'
24k 24k 24k 24k
F
r
o
n
t
R
e
a
r
13' 7' 5' 6' 5' 14'
Vehicle Record #18 - Mobile Crane

Figure 5.18: Vehicle #18 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 1
61.5k
Total Weight of "Effective" Axles Producing Max. +M = 492 kips
50'
R
e
a
r
7.92'
Vehicle Record #213 - Magnolia Transportation
61.5k 61.5k 61.5k 61.5k 61.5k 61.5k 61.5k
5.25' 5.25' 5.25' 5.25' 5.25' 5.25' 5.25' 5.33'
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e

o
f
f

s
p
a
n

56
8k
195'
12'
Max. -M Location - Example Bridge 2
32k
14'
60'
F
r
o
n
t
32k
R
e
a
r
14'
75' 60'
35'

Figure 5.20: HS20-44 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 2

8k
195'
11'
Max. +M Location on End Span - Example Bridge 2
32k
14'
60'
F
r
o
n
t
32k
R
e
a
r
14'
75' 60'
21'

Figure 5.21: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment in End Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2

57
195'
Max. +M Location on Interior Span - Example Bridge 2
60'
F
r
o
n
t
75' 60'
R
e
a
r
16.5k each 21.5k each 22.5k each
4' 10' 4' 17' 4' 4' 4' 16' 12'

Figure 5.22: Vehicle #87 Max. Positive Moment in Interior Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2

195'
Max. +M Location on End Span - Example Bridge 2
Vehicle Record #203 - McDermott Bridge Beam
10 @ 5.08'
60' 75' 60'
Total Weight of "Effective" Axles Producing Max. +M = 391.7 kips
35.61 k each
R
e
a
r
7.7'
1.5'
50.8'

Figure 5.23: Vehicle #203 Max. Positive Moment in End Span Location on Ex. Bridge 2

58
195'
60'
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e

o
f
f

s
p
a
n
75' 60'
Total Weight of "Effective" Axles Producing Max. -M = 769 kips
35.61 k each
R
e
a
r
2.7'
34.18 k each
9 @ 5.08' = 45.7'
11.6' 12.4'
11 @ 5.08' = 55.9'
6.7'

Figure 5.24: Vehicle #203 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 2

180'
Max. + M Location - Example Bridge 3
90'
F
r
o
n
t
90'
8k
R
e
a
r
14' 23' 39'
32k 32k
14'

Figure 5.25: HS20-44 Max. Positive Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3

59
180'
90'
F
r
o
n
t
90'
8k
R
e
a
r
14' 30' 32'
32k 32k
14'

Figure 5.26: HS20-44 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3

180'
90'
F
r
o
n
t
90'
16.5 k each
R
e
a
r
17'
21.5 k each 22.5 k each
26' 4'4' 10' 4' 4' 17' 4'


60
180'
90'
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e

o
f
f

s
p
a
n
90'
Total Weight of "Effective" Axles Producing Max. +M = 427 kips
35.61 k each
R
e
a
r
11 @ 5.08' = 55.9'
14.4' 19.7'


180'
90'
F
r
o
n
t

A
x
l
e

o
f
f

s
p
a
n
90'
Total Weight of "Effective" Axles Producing Max. -M = 917 kips
35.61 k each
R
e
a
r
34.18 k each
11 @ 5.08' = 55.9' 11 @ 5.08' = 55.9'
39.75 k each
14' 7' 8.6' 15.4' 18.7'
4.5'

Figure 5.29: Vehicle #203 Max. Negative Moment Location on Ex. Bridge 3
5.1.2 Determination of Critical Longitudinal Truck Positions
As stated earlier, the BRUFEM package is best suited for analysis of LLDFs and calculating bridge
ratings. BRUFEM is not set up to efficiently generate the maximum moment response envelopes
required to correctly identify the longitudinal location at which a vehicle will produce maximum bending
moments in a bridge structure. The BRUFEM preprocessor can be forced into calculating these responses
by incrementally shifting all axle loads along the bridge structure; however, this would create output files
too large to manage. A better approach to finding the critical longitudinal vehicle positions is to use the
features of SAP2000s bridge analysis options. Once the SAP2000 analysis is complete, the user needs to
61
input just the effective truck axles acting on the bridge in their critical moment position for BRUFEM
LLDF calculation.
The best method of explaining the process of determining the critical moment location on a bridge
structure is to use Example Bridge 1 to describe the procedure. Example Bridge 1 is a 50-foot simple
span structure. Assume we want to find the location at which the largest value of moment is created
somewhere along the span for an AASHTO HS20 vehicle. Rules exist for simple spans (as explained in
Chapter 3) for determining these locations by finding the center of gravity of the trucks axles. From this
information, the vehicle can be accurately placed on the span, and bending moments calculated to
determine the maximum moment produced in the span. Unfortunately, not all vehicles or bridge layouts
are as easy to analyze as an HS20 on a 50-foot simple span.
Continuous structures have no simple rules available to calculate the maximum moment positions of any
moving load system. Long trucks also pose a problem since many sets of effective axles can exist
within the same truck if the truck is longer than the total bridge length or has many sets of axles of
varying weight. For these reasons, a SAP2000 line-girder analysis is the best method available to
determine the maximum moments generated by an arbitrary truck. Using the line-girder analysis
techniques discussed in Chapter 3, output of maximum positive and negative moments can be generated
at each node or output segment of the structure. A simple search through the SAP2000 output will give
the maximum positive moment on any span, as required. Looking at the SAP2000 output at any interior
supports of continuous structures will give the maximum negative moments at that support. These
moment values are tabulated with their location along the element length, giving the user the point within
the structure at which the maximum moment occurs.
Now the user knows the point in the structure where the maximum positive and negative bending effects
occur, however, that is not an indicator of the truck position necessary to produce such effects. To
determine the truck position that causes the maximum moment effect at a certain joint or node in the line-
girder model, an influence line can be generated. SAP2000 can generate the moment influence line at any
joint, as requested by the user. The calculated position of maximum moment is the joint at which the user
must request the moment influence line in order to find the critical truck position. The moment produced
by each axle of a vehicle can be found by multiplying the ordinate of the moment influence line at that
axles position on the structure by the weight of that axle. A summation of these values for each vehicle
axle gives the total moment produced at the node previously specified by the user.
SAP2000 output tables can be exported as text files and imported as data into a spreadsheet to calculate
the vehicle location that will produce the maximum moment in the structure. Once these moment
influence values are placed in the spreadsheet, the trucks axles can be marched along the structure, with
the spreadsheet calculating the total moment produced until the maximum moment value found from the
original SAP2000 analysis is duplicated. When these total moments match, the critical vehicle location
has been determined.
It is important to input many nodes or output segments into the SAP2000 model to generate a smooth
moment influence line. The research presented for this report used about one output segment per foot of
bridge span length. Understanding and using the moment influence lines can also narrow down the
possibilities of truck locations that can cause maximum moment effects. Qualitative assessments can be
made quickly to determine which axles of the vehicle will generate the most moment potential. This can
help to avoid placing the vehicle at locations that will obviously not create the maximum moment desired.
For this research, all simple span truck locations were found using the simple rules available and
discussed in Chapter 3. All continuous span truck locations (for Example Bridges 2 and 3) were
calculated using the influence line technique. The influence lines used to generate these critical truck
locations are shown in Figures 5.30 through 5.34. This influence line technique can be programmed into
a spreadsheet and utilized to prevent the user from filtering through a large amount of BRUFEM post-
processor output and inputting more information than necessary in the BRUFEM Veh.dat files.
62
The location of the maximum positive moment will vary in the same bridge structure, depending on the
vehicle under consideration. In this research, all of the maximum positive moment locations in both
Example Bridges 2 and 3 were almost identical for the different truck layouts chosen for analysis. The
maximum positive moment influence lines shown in Figures 5.30, 5.32, and 5.33 can be used for each
vehicle analyzed in this report since the maximum deviation from these critical moment locations was at
most one foot. Since the values for the influence lines vary slightly over such a small distance, it is not
detrimental to the results of the critical truck location analysis to use only the curves shown in Figures
5.30, 5.32, and 5.33.
In actual practice, the locations of maximum moment in a span may vary significantly from truck to truck
depending on specific bridge or vehicle axle layout. Negative moment influence lines, on the other hand,
need to be developed only at the interior support locations since the maximum negative moments will
always occur at these points. Appendix B shows the input files that were generated to model the non-
standard truck layouts (Veh.dat) and the girder characteristics (Bar.dat) for Example Bridges 2 and 3.
The Veh.dat files include only the axles located on the bridge structure for each critical moment-
producing position as described in this chapter.

-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Distance along Bridge (ft)

Figure 5.30: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line in End Span of Ex. Bridge 2

63
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Figure 5.31: Maximum Negative Moment Influence Line at Interior Support for Ex. Bridge 2

-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Figure 5.32: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line in Interior Span of Ex. Bridge 2

64
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Figure 5.33: Maximum Positive Moment Influence Line for Ex. Bridge 3

-130
-120
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Figure 5.34: Maximum Negative Moment Influence Line for Ex. Bridge 3
65
5.1.3 Running the BRUFEM Preprocessor
Once all the input files required of BRUFEM for nonstandard girder geometry and vehicle layout were
generated, the BRUFEMNT preprocessor was launched for each of the 15 runs. This section will
describe the modeling techniques used for each Example Bridge and will explain the input used to
generate the History.pre files for each run. While the general concepts of the modeling are discussed in
this chapter, none of the input files are listed here. All of the 15 History.pre files are listed in Appendix
B along with the Bar.dat files required for Example Bridges 2 and 3 and the required Veh.dat files for
nonstandard vehicles.
5.1.3.1 BRUFEM Modeling of Example Bridge 1
Example Bridge 1 is a noncomposite 50-foot simple span bridge with a layout shown in Figure 1.1.
Diaphragms are modeled using the interactive BRUFEM preprocessor input technique at each of the
locations shown in the Elevation View of Figure 1.1. BRUFEM automatically places diaphragms at the
support points if they are used in any bridge, but additional locations can be input as required by the user.
BRUFEM allows the user two options for modeling all diaphragms in the bridge. The two options for
diaphragm modeling are steel beam diaphragms and X-brace diaphragms. It was found during the
development of the BRUFEM programs that the X-brace type of diaphragms behaved similarly to the
K-brace diaphragm type. For this reason, all diaphragms modeled in this research consisted of the
X-brace type. The end diaphragms of Example Bridge 1 are the steel beam type of diaphragms. These
end diaphragms are modeled as X-braces since BRUFEM allows only one type of diaphragm throughout
the bridge model.
When diaphragms are present in the actual bridge structure, they must be modeled to get valid results
from BRUFEM. Also, when modeling the diaphragms in a bridge structure, the BRUFEM post-
processor, POSTNT, increases the live load moments, shears, and their corresponding LLDFs by 5%
before displaying any results. The reasoning behind this 5% increase is explained in the BRUFEM Users
Manual in detail, and this increase is unnecessary for this research. It is also important to note that the
BRUFEM finite element output files do not include this 5% increase. Only the post-processor output
reflects this 5% increase.
The BRUFEM basic model for Example Bridge 1 consists of four W33x141 girders, with zero skew,
spaced at 8-0 centers. Since the cross section of the girders is constant throughout the length of the
bridge, a Bar.dat file is not required for Example Bridge 1. No additional stiffeners are added to
account for parapets or curbs. Other research has been done to study the effects of this type of stiffening,
and it is not included in this research. BRUFEM prompts the user for either a full analysis or a live-load
analysis only. A live-load analysis is sufficient in these cases since only LLDFs are required in the
BRUFEM output. A full bridge rating can be done if the full analysis is completed; however, additional
information is included in the output files that is not required for this research.
The concrete slab thickness in this model is 6 inches and the f'
c
of the concrete is 3,000 psi. Four
elements are used to model the slab between the girders, as recommended in the BRUFEM Manual.
Since this bridge consists of only one 50-foot segment, 50 nodes were used to model the bridge in the
longitudinal direction, one element per foot length. The edges of the bridge slab, or overhangs, extend
3'-7" beyond the centerlines of the exterior girders. This information is input to the BRUFEM
preprocessor directly and three elements are used to model these portions of the slab on each side of the
bridge. BRUFEM prompts the user for the distance from the edge of the bridge to the travel lanes on both
sides of the bridge being modeled. This is to check travel lane edge clearances during post-processing.
For Example Bridge 1, both edge distances are input as 1'-6".
During the live load description portion of the BRUFEM pre-processing, both the interactive input
methods and the Veh.dat file input methods were used, depending on the vehicle being modeled. Only
one of each vehicle was placed on the bridge simultaneously, however, BRUFEM does allow for up to
66
three. All of these BRUFEM runs specified only one input vehicle position, as described earlier in this
chapter. BRUFEM does allow the user to specify incremental shifts in the live loads on the slab, but
these options were not used in this research. No lane loads were added during these LLDF analyses, but
BRUFEM allows the user to input these types of loads also, if desired.
Only minor differences exist between Example Bridges 1 and 2. Example Bridge 2 is a 3-span
continuous structure, 195-0 in length, rather than a 50-foot simple span bridge (see Figure 1.2). Since
Example Bridge 2 has longer spans than Example Bridge 1, the diaphragm locations are spaced
differently, even though their make-up is similar. Example Bridge 2 has a varying girder cross-section
also, using W33x130 sections with cover-plated interior pier sections. This varied cross-section is
modeled using the Bar.dat file shown in Appendix B. The other characteristics of Example Bridge 2
match those of Example Bridge 1, and only the differences in the BRUFEM models will be discussed in
this section.
The BRUFEM model for Example Bridge 2 still uses four elements between girders to model the slab,
but uses a different element scheme in the longitudinal direction. BRUFEM only allows the user to use
150 elements to model a bridge in the longitudinal direction. The span lengths of Example Bridge 2 are
60 feet, 75 feet, and 60 feet, respectively, and our model contains the maximum amount of elements
allowed by BRUFEM. The 60-foot spans have 45 elements each longitudinally and the 75-foot span has
60 elements longitudinally. This element layout was done in an attempt to keep the aspect ratios similar
throughout the structure, while utilizing the maximum number of longitudinal elements allowed by
BRUFEM. The BRUFEM preprocessor also prompts the user for any hinges in the continuous structures.
No hinges were used during the modeling of Example Bridge 2.
The modeling of Example Bridge 3 is quite different than the modeling of the other two Example Bridges.
This is due to the fact that Example Bridge 3 is a fully composite bridge structure. The roadway width is
34-0 for this two-span continuous structure and both the steel and concrete is of a higher strength than
that of Example Bridges 1 and 2. The specified concrete f'
c
is 4,000 psi, and the minimum slab thickness
is 8 inches. The slab overhangs the centers of the exterior girders by 3'-6" on each side of the bridge as
shown in Figure 1.4. All four girders of the structure consist of plate girders rather than rolled sections,
spaced at 10'-0" centers with zero skew. The interior pier section of each girder has an increased bending
stiffness due to larger plate sections in this region. The total length of the bridge is 180 feet, consisting of
two 90-foot spans. Cross frames, modeled as X-braces, are also included in the BRUFEM model.
The BRUFEM preprocessor allows the user the choice of two types of composite action modeling
techniques. The girder-slab interaction models available in BRUFEM are illustrated in Figure 5.35 and
Figure 5.36. Noncomposite action is modeled as shown in Figure 5.35. In the BRUFEM noncomposite
model, the centroid of the girder is at the same elevation as the slab centroid. Section properties specified
for the girders are those of the girders alone. In the noncomposite model, the function of the slab
elements is mainly to distribute the wheel loads laterally to the girders.

67
CENTROID OF
GIRDER ALONE
SLAB ELEMENTS
(PLATE BENDING)
AND SLAB ELEMENTS
NON-COMPOSITE ACTION

Figure 5.35: BRUFEM Model of Noncomposite Slab-Girder Interaction
Figure 5.36 shows the two methods by which BRUFEM can model composite action. One method of
modeling involves the use of a composite girder model (CGM) and the other involves the use of an
eccentric girder model (EGM). When using the CGM method, BRUFEM specifies composite properties
for the girders. The centroid of the composite girder section is located at the same elevation as the
centroid of the slab in the finite element model. The CGM composite girder is the combination of a
stand-alone girder and an effective width of slab.
CENTROID OF
COMPOSITE SECTION
SLAB ELEMENTS
(PLATE BENDING)
COMPOSITE GIRDER MODEL
COMPOSITE ACTION MODELS
ECCENTRIC GIRDER MODEL
CENTROID OF
SLAB ELEMENTS
(PLATE BENDING
SLAB ELEMENTS
EFFECTIVE WIDTH
ECCENTRICITY
CENTROID OF
GIRDER ALONE
& PLANE STRESS)
RIGID LINK

Figure 5.36: BRUFEM Models of Composite Slab-Girder Interaction
The second method available in BRUFEM for modeling composite action between the slab and girders
involves what the BRUFEM manual calls a three-dimensional analysis. BRUFEMs three-dimensional
analysis, the eccentric girder method (EGM), uses the noncomposite section properties of both the girders
and the slab, along with a vertical eccentricity of the girders from the mid-depth of the slab (see Figure
5.36). The eccentricity of the girders is calculated internally while running the SIMPAL analysis portion
of BRUFEM. Modeling the composite action in this way takes the in-plane stresses developed in the slab
into account by using shell elements. These shell elements consider membrane behavior as well as
bending behavior, accounting for the effects of shear lag directly, without the use of the effective width
calculation done in CGM modeling.
The EGM assumes what BRUFEM calls a rigid link between the mid-depth of the slab and the centroid
of the girder. The EGM modeling technique is generally considered to be more accurate than the CGM
68
technique.[4] The CGM is considered less accurate because it approximates the effective width required
to determine the composite section properties of the girders. This research used the EGM method of
modeling composite action, however, these results must be interpreted a bit more carefully than results
generated from the CGM technique. In the EGM analysis, the effect of the axial girder forces must be
taken into consideration when computing the total moment in the girder section. Also, the user must use
sufficient numbers of longitudinal elements when modeling with EGM. If the EGM model does not
contain enough elements longitudinally, the compatibility of longitudinal strains between the girder and
slab is not achieved. The BRUFEM Users Guide recommends at least 20 longitudinal elements per span,
and the model generated for Example Bridge 3 used 75 elements per span to utilize the maximum number
of 150 longitudinal elements in the model.[4]
5.2 SUMMARY OF BRUFEM OUTPUT FILES
BRUFEM creates many files necessary to complete the analysis that remain after a run has been
completed. The four most important of these output files for the user are explained here to assist in
finding the most useful BRUFEM output information quickly. The History.pre file is a history file
containing all data interactively input by the user. History.pre is a useful file to view when checking a
models input values. It expedites the editing of any incorrect input files by allowing the user to change
only the incorrect input values while allowing the user to run the analysis again using the Restart
preprocessor command.
Another useful output file is the file titled Input.in1. The Input.in1 file is the finite element bridge
model file created by the BRUFEM preprocessor that contains truck wheel locations, wheel loads,
properties of the finite element model members, and joint coordinates. The Input.in1 file is useful for
checking the truck positions during analysis, especially when the vehicles being analyzed are not standard
AASHTO design vehicles.
The two most important files generated by BRUFEM for the user are the Brate.out file and the
Input.ou1 file. Brate.out is the BRUFEM bridge rating output file containing both bridge rating
information and LLDF results, as requested by the user. For this research, only the LLDF results were
requested during analysis. The Input.ou1 file contains detailed finite element output such as number of
joints in the model, number of load conditions, nodal coordinates, boundary conditions, element
definitions, load data, displacements, forces, and stresses. The Input.ou1 file is a large file, but contains
all results that are later interpreted and presented in a less cumbersome manner in Brate.out.
It should be noted that the BRUFEM post-processor (POSTNT) sometimes takes the true finite element
analysis results from Input.ou1 and alters them when certain conditions exist in the bridge model. For
this reason, the user should exercise caution before blindly using the Brate.out results from the
POSTNT program. The user should refer to the BRUFEM Users Manual for a discussion on the reasons
behind these variances.[4] Section 5.3 discusses the differences between the SIMPAL finite element
analysis results (Input.ou1) and the Brate.out file for steel stringer bridges with intermediate
diaphragms only.
5.3 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIMPAL OUTPUT AND POSTNT OUTPUT
When modeling steel stringer bridges with intermediate diaphragms, BRUFEMs POSTNT program
modifies the finite element results and presents this modified information in the Brate.out file. One
modification that is made to the finite element output is a 5% increase of both the calculated shears and
moments used in calculating BRUFEMs LLDFs. This increase is included because while developing the
BRUFEM package, the authors found a small percentage of steel stringer bridges where the moment and
shear values were underestimated by as much as 5% when compared to results of more expensive finite
element programs. This anomaly was present only in steel stringer bridges with intermediate diaphragms
present. All three of the Example Bridges studied during this research are steel stringer bridges with
69
intermediate diaphragms. Since all three of these bridges are very common, right-girder bridges, of
common span lengths, these 5% increases in shears and moments have been removed from the calculated
BRUFEM LLDFs. All BRUFEM LLDF results presented in this report have been modified from the
values shown in Brate.out to remove this 5% increase.
Another modification made to the BRUFEM LLDF values was in the manner of defining a girder LLDF.
BRUFEM defines a moment LLDF as shown in Equation 5.1.

N
M
M
DFM
i
i
i
2
(5.1)
where: DFM
i
= Lateral-load moment distribution factor for girder i
M
i
= Live-load moment in girder i

i
= Total moment in the girders across the section of the bridge
N = Number of vehicles on the bridge
The BRUFEM post-processor (POSTNT) evaluates the lateral moment and shear distribution factors for
every load case output by SIMPAL. The post-processor first reads the moments, axial forces and shears
in the girder and stiffener members, the axial forces in truss members and the stresses in slab elements for
a load case and calculates the total moment and shear acting on either side of the girder and stiffener
elements.[4] POSTNT then evaluates lateral moment and shear distribution factors for the girders
considering the total moment and shear acting on the girders an stiffeners across the bridge for the load
case in question. The BRUFEM LLDFs use 2N in the denominator to formulate wheel line LLDFs
rather than truck LLDFs. All moments and LLDFs reported in Chapter 6, as well as the modified
AASHTO design LLDFs reported in Chapter 4, are truck LLDFs.
The LLDFs reported in Chapter 6 are also modified from the BRUFEM LLDF output to reflect only the
forces resisted by the girders of the bridge structures studied. The results reported by BRUFEM lump all
forces taken by the slab into the girder LLDFs. The focus of this research was to isolate the load effects
on the girders only, thus accounting for the slab capacity that is assumed to be zero during AASHTO
design procedures. The procedures used to isolate the girder force effects are outlined in Section 5.4.
These modifications allow for a direct calculation of the maximum moment required of a bridge girder
under these overweight vehicles. Directly using the BRUFEM LLDF calculation procedure slightly
overestimates the force effects actually seen by the bridge girders alone.
5.4 USER MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR POSTNT RESULTS
Two separate modification techniques are required to report the girder moment LLDFs in this research.
Two techniques are necessary because both noncomposite and composite girder construction techniques
exist in the three Example Bridges studied here. The methods by which BRUFEM calculates the total
girder moments for each type of model will be discussed, along with the user modifications required to
separate all sources of total girder moment from the output.
5.4.1 Modifications Required for Noncomposite Girder Models
In order to separate the girder moment from the slab moment at each girder section, the user must enter
BRUFEMs Input.ou1 file. Located about halfway through this output file is the section titled Forces
Three-D Frame Members. From this listing, all girder element forces can be determined, given the
element number. Knowing the location where the maximum moment occurs in the span from statics or
SAP2000 output, the user can find the moments in the steel section only from the 1-3 Plane (M2)
70
column in this file. You will notice that the moment listed here is less than the moment listed for the
girder in question in BRUFEMs Brate.out file. This is because BRUFEM adds any moment taken by
the slab into this girder moment output.
According to the BRUFEM Users Manual, the programs post-processor takes the finite element output
for the slab members and numerically integrates the internal forces to develop a total slab moment.[4] It
is very time-consuming and difficult to pinpoint all of this slab moment data in the finite element output,
however, since the only sources of moment capacity come from the slab and girder in the noncomposite
model, the slab moment can be quickly determined.
The slab moments listed in Chapter 6 for the noncomposite girder models were calculated by subtracting
the girder moment (from Input.ou1) from the total girder moment listed in the Brate.out file. It
should be noted that the total girder moment listed in the Brate.out file is divided by a factor of 1.05 to
remove the 5% moment increase built in to those values. Equation 5.2 illustrates this calculation.

GIRDER
TOTAL
S
M
M
M
=
05 . 1
(5.2)
where: M
s
= Slab moment
M
total
= Brate.out moment value
M
girder
= Input.ou1 girder moment alone
The user can also approximate the slab moment value for the noncomposite girder model by assuming an
effective width of concrete over each steel girder. This technique assumes that the curvature in both the
concrete slab and the steel girder are equal at the cross-section in question. The effective width of the
concrete slab is required to calculate the moment of inertia of the slab section assumed to act with each
girder. Equation 5.3 illustrates the general curvature relationship, and Equation 5.4 solves directly for the
slab moment, given the girder moment.

GIRDER SLAB
EI
M
EI
M

(5.3)

=
GIRDER GIRDER
SLAB SLAB
GIRDER SLAB
I E
I E
M M

(5.4)

5.4.2 Modifications Required for BRUFEM EGM Composite Girder Models
A similar technique is used to calculate the slab moments in composite girder models. BRUFEMs finite
element output supplies enough information to calculate the moments carried by the slab. In the
composite girder model, however, the couple generated by the axial forces in both the slab and the girder
creates an added component to the total moment capacity of the section. The only additional information
that is required from BRUFEM for this condition is the axial load in the girder. The axial load in the
girder is listed in the rightmost column of the Input.ou1 output. When reading the girder moment, the
girder axial load can also be quickly located at the same joint. Using this added information, and the
eccentricity of the slab centroid from the girder centroid (which is known by bridge geometry), all the
necessary components are available to calculate the slab moment directly.
71
Equation 5.5 shows how BRUFEM calculates the total girder moment for LLDF purposes, and
Equation 5.6 illustrates the formula for calculating the moment in the slab alone. Equation 5.6 divides the
total BRUFEM post-processor output value by a factor of 1.05 to remove the 5% increase built in to those
values. Figure 5.37 illustrates these forces and moments used to calculate the slab moments in Chapter 6.

( ) e P M M M
GIRDER SLAB TOTAL
+ + =
(5.5)

( ) e P M
M
M
GIRDER
TOTAL
SLAB

=
05 . 1

(5.6)

where: M
total
= Brate.out total girder section moment
M
slab
= Moment in slab only
M
girder
= Moment in girder alone
P = Axial force in both the slab and girder elements
e = Eccentricity from slab centroid to girder centroid
CENTROID OF SLAB ELEMENTS
e
CENTROID OF GIRDER ALONE
CENTROID OF COMPOSITE SECTION
P slab
P girder
M girder
M total
M slab

Figure 5.37: Total Moment on EGM Steel Girder Section
The moment LLDF values listed in Chapter 6 calculated from the BRUFEM analysis are calculated
differently for the noncomposite model and the composite girder model. Equation 5.7 shows the
calculation technique used for the noncomposite girder models. Equation 5.8 shows the calculation
technique used for the composite girder models.

05 . 1
TOTAL
i GIRDER
i
M
M
LLDF Composite Non (5.7)
72

05 . 1
TOTAL
i SLAB i TOTAL
i
M
M M
LLDF Composite (5.8)

where: LLDF
i
= Lateral Load Distribution Factor for girder i
M
girder i
= Moment in girder i alone
M
slab i
= Moment in slab at girder i
M
total i
= Brate.out girder i moment and slab moment
M
total
= Total Brate.out moment across section of bridge
73
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF BRUFEM LLDFS
The results from 15 separate BRUFEM analyses are presented in this chapter. These results are presented
in three groups of 5 analysis runs, sorted by the Example Bridge each represents. A few cursory checks
of these data were made to see if the trends matched what was expected of the analyses. One condition
that can be verified quickly is totaling the BRUFEM moments across a bridge section and making sure
this sum equals the total static moment produced by the vehicle in that location. This summation was
checked for each of these 15 runs and the errors found ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%.
The error in total moment was caused by the difference in location of the maximum moment within a
member and location of the nodes in the BRUFEM model. Also, BRUFEM limits the user to a relatively
small number of nodes and elements, and this can become a concern when longer multi-span continuous
structures are involved. As the models get longer, the length of the elements must increase in size, due to
the restrained number of members and joints allowed. Increasing the size of the elements increases the
possibility of error due to missing the maximum moment location. Another source of error stems from
the numerical integration techniques used by BRUFEM to calculate slab moments. As element sizes
increase, force gradients present in the model are less accurately captured by the numerical integration
technique used by BRUFEM. Errors can also arise when the wheel locations do not match nodal
locations. Vehicle wheel loads applied to an element are spread out to the corner nodes of the element.
The model sees these wheel loads only at the nodal locations, causing slight errors to arise. Since all of
these errors are applied evenly across the bridge model to each girder, they do not affect the LLDFs.
6.1 LLDF AND SLAB MOMENT RESULTS FOR EXAMPLE BRIDGE 1 (RUNS 1 THROUGH 5)
This section presents the analysis results obtained analyzing Example Bridge 1. This structure is a
50-foot, simply supported, noncomposite stringer bridge. See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1 for more detailed
Example Bridge 1 layout information. Table 5.1 lists the figures that diagram the vehicle locations for
each run made on Example Bridge 1 (Runs 1 through 5). Vehicle location information and the analysis
results are listed in Table 6.1. In Runs 1 through 3, AASHTO design trucks were used to load this
structure at the location causing the maximum moment effect in a line-girder analysis. Run 4 uses a
vehicle from the TxDOT Overload Vehicle Database (Vehicle #18). This vehicle was selected because it
produced the highest moment of any vehicle in the Overload Vehicle Database on the simple-span bridge
layouts summarized in Chapter 2. Run #5 uses a vehicle from the TxDOT Superheavy Vehicle Database
(Vehicle #213). This vehicle was selected because it produced the highest moment on the simple-span
bridge layouts of all vehicles studied. This reasoning was followed to select the TxDOT vehicles used for
each bridge layout during this research.
74
Table 6.1: Example Bridge 1 Analysis Results (Noncomposite)
Vehicle Vehicle Type
Lane
Used
M
max (Line Girder)

(k-in)
Max. M Location
from End of Span
Run 1 H 20 Design Travel 5352 23.6 ft
Run 2 HS 20 Design Travel 7536 22.7 ft
Run 3 HS 20 Design Design 7536 22.7 ft
Run 4 Veh. #18 Overload Travel 13104 25.0 ft
Run 5 Veh. #213 Superheavy Center 43008 23.7 ft
All Moments listed in (kip-inches)
Girder M
Total

M
Girder

M
Slab

Girder M%
Slab M% LLDF
1 199.1 192.5 6.6 96.7 3.3 0.037
2 902.9 866.5 36.4 96.0 4.0 0.165
3 1895.2 1792.0 103.2 94.6 5.4 0.341
4 2258.1 2156.5 101.6 95.5 4.5 0.410
R
u
n

1

Sum 5255.2 5007.5 247.7 95.3 4.7 0.953
1 318.1 309.0 9.1 97.1 2.9 0.041
2
1325.7 1276.0 49.7 96.3 3.7 0.171
3 2572.4 2446.0 126.4 95.1 4.9 0.327
4 3253.3 3118.0 135.3 95.8 4.2 0.417
R
u
n

2

Sum 7469.5 7149.0 320.5 95.7 4.3 0.956
1 128.6 122.6 6.0 95.4 4.6 0.016
2
1090.5
1055.1 35.4 96.8 3.2 0.136
3 2620.0 2509.3 110.8 95.8 4.2 0.324
4 3897.1 3758.0 139.1 96.4 3.6 0.486
R
u
n

3

Sum 7736.2 7445.0 291.2 96.2 3.8 0.962
1 449.5 437.0 12.5 97.2 2.8 0.033
2 2364.8 2288.0 76.8 96.8 3.2 0.175
3 4293.3 4136.0 157.3 96.3 3.7 0.317
4 5938.1 5725.0 213.1 96.4 3.6 0.439
R
u
n

4

Sum 13046 12586 459.7 96.5 3.5 0.964
1 10419 10087 331.6 96.8 3.2 0.235
2 11025 10641 383.8 96.5 3.5 0.248
3 11024.8 10641 383.8 96.5 3.5 0.248
4 10419 10087 331.6 96.8 3.2 0.235
R
u
n

5

Sum 42888 41457 1430.6 96.7 3.3 0.966

75
One of the trends that should be noted from these LLDF and slab moment values is the percentage of the
total moment taken by the girders and by the slab for this 50-foot simple-span noncomposite bridge
model. The total moment taken by the slab elements ranges from 3.3% to 4.7% of the total moment taken
by the bridge section. In the output listed for Run 1 in Table 6.1, the sum of the LLDF values is shown to
be 0.953. The sum totals 1.0 when the slab moment percentage is added to the sum of the LLDF values
for noncomposite bridges.
This means the total moment taken by the girders alone ranges from 95.3% to 96.7%. This percentage of
slab moment capacity is neglected using normal design procedures, but does reduce the moments in the
girders. Shorter span bridges may see an even greater percentage of their total moment capacity being
taken by the slab. Shorter bridges may benefit most from a finite element analysis.
Another important trend can be seen when comparing the results of Run 1 and Run 2. Each vehicles
transverse position and axle width on the bridge slab is identical, however, the total moment produced and
the maximum moment location within the span differ due to the varied number of truck axles and their
layout. As expected, the LLDFs for each girder in these two models are nearly identical. The exterior
girders closest to the vehicle are experiencing the bulk of the applied loads in each of these analyses as
expected for trucks located in the AASHTO exterior girder design lane. Section 6.4.1 compares these
values with the AASHTO design LLDF values.
Comparing the results of Run 2 and Run 3 shows the difference in the LLDFs when the same truck is
moved from the AASHTO design lane to an actual travel lane on the bridge slab. This was done to show
the benefit of analyzing overloads in the actual transverse location they will travel, rather than forcing these
loads to one extreme side of the structure (as assumed when using the AASHTO design provisions).
Moving the truck (an AASHTO design vehicle in this case) towards the centerline of the structure reduces
the moment on Girder 4 and slightly increases the moments in the other girders. The exterior girder LLDF
is reduced from 0.49 to 0.42 in this case, with the adjacent interior girder LLDF increasing only slightly
from 0.32 to 0.33. The load sharing can be seen by comparing both of the girders on the opposite side of the
structure from the load position. When the trucks are placed in the design lane, very little help is offered
from the two girders located on the opposite side of the structure. By simply moving the vehicle into the
travel lane, the girders opposite the applied load reduce the most heavily loaded exterior girder by 14%. The
benefit of simply analyzing the overloaded vehicles in their travel lanes is obvious using this example,
especially when the maximum LLDF for an exterior girder can be reduced 10 to 15 percent.
Run 5 found the moment LLDFs for a Superheavy vehicle traveling along the centerline of the bridge
slab. This run was made to verify the intuitive feeling that using a wide trailer for these overloads and
moving the vehicle along the structures centerline evenly spreads the load to each girder. The interior
girders carry slightly more of the total moment than the outside girders. Each girder is taking roughly one
quarter of the total moment caused by this vehicle.
This section presents the analysis results obtained analyzing Example Bridge 2. This structure is a 195-foot,
three-span continuous, noncomposite stringer bridge consisting of two 60-foot exterior spans and a 75-foot
interior span. See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2 for more detailed Example Bridge 2 layout information. Table
5.1 lists the figures that diagram the vehicle locations for each run made on Example Bridge 2 (Runs 6
through 10). Vehicle location information and the analysis results are listed in Table 6.2.
Comparing the slab moment capacity percentages in these slightly longer continuous spans to the 50-foot
simple span, we find similar results. The total moment taken by the slab elements in this continuous span
model ranges from 3.0% to 4.0% of the total moment taken by the bridge section, which is very similar to
the shorter, noncomposite, simple-span results.
76
Table 6.2: Example Bridge 2 Analysis Results (Noncomposite)
Lane
Used
M
max Line Girder

(k-in)
Max. M Location
Run 6 HS 20 Design Design -5640 Interior Support
Run 7 HS 20 Design Design 7716 25 from End
Run 8 Veh. #87 Overload Travel 13284 Midspan 75 Span
Run 9 Veh. #203 Superheavy Center 28212 26 from End
Run 10 Veh. #203 Superheavy Center -41856 Interior Support
Girder M
Total

M
Girder

M
Slab

Girder M%
Slab M% LLDF
1 164.8 158.0 6.8 95.9 4.1 0.028
2 812.4 785.0 27.4 96.6 3.4 0.137
3 1873.3 1813.0 60.3 96.8 3.2 0.316
4 2879.1 2787.0 91.6 96.8 3.2 0.487
R
u
n

6

Sum 5729.5 5543.5 186.0 96.8 3.2 0.968
1 33.3 31.0 2.3 93.0 7.0 0.004
2
1085.7 1051.0 34.7 96.8 3.2 0.137
3 2681.9 2562.5 119.4 95.5 4.5 0.333
4 3890.5 3740.5 150.0 96.1 3.9 0.486
R
u
n

7

Sum 7691.4 7385.0 306.4 96.0 4.0 0.960
1 669.5 648.0 21.5 96.8 3.2 0.049
2
2466.7
2379.0 87.7 96.4 3.6 0.180
3 4181.9 4019.5 162.4 96.1 3.9 0.304
4 5901.0 5686.0 215.0 96.4 3.6 0.430
R
u
n

8

Sum 13219 12733 486.6 96.3 3.7 0.963
1 6821.0 6573.5 247.5 96.4 3.6 0.237
2 7050.5 6753.5 297.0 95.8 4.2 0.243
3 7050.5 6753.5 297.0 95.8 4.2 0.243
4 8621.0 6573.5 247.5 96.4 3.6 0.237
R
u
n

9

Sum 27743 26654 1088.9 96.1 3.9 0.960
1 9358.1 9088.0 270.1 97.1 2.9 0.218
2 11487.6 11133.5 354.1 96.9 3.1 0.267
3 11487.6 11133.5 354.1 96.9 3.1 0.267
4 9358.1 9088.0 270.1 97.1 2.9 0.218
R
u
n

1
0

Sum 41691 40443 1248.4 97.0 3.0 0.970
77
The LLDFs from Run 7 on the three-span continuous structure are very similar to those obtained from
Run 3 on the 50-foot simply supported structure. Although the span lengths differ, these bridges have the
same girder spacing, slab width, and slab thickness. The girder sizes do vary, however, each girder is
identical with the others in each respective span, so the relative stiffness properties of each girder with
respect to the others across a section is the same in both structures. Due to these similarities, it would be
expected that the same vehicle in the same transverse position would produce similar LLDF values on
each structure. Looking at the LLDF results for Run 7 and Run 3, a strong correlation is present, adding
confidence to the results reported.
Both Run 9 and Run 10 analyze the same Superheavy vehicle traveling down the centerline of Example
Bridge 2. The longitudinal location of this vehicle is varied between these two runs. The vehicle was
positioned for maximum positive moment effect on the exterior (60-foot) span in Run 9. The vehicle was
positioned for maximum negative moment at the interior support in Run 10. In these cases, the LLDFs
showed the symmetry expected of a bridge loaded along its centerline, but the LLDF values varied
slightly among the runs. Figures 5.23 and 5.24 show that more axles are effective in Run 10, with some
axles applying different loads than the axles effective during Run 9. In each case, the interior girders see
the highest percentage of the applied load, as much as 26.7% of the total moment on the bridge section.
This section presents the analysis results obtained analyzing Example Bridge 3. This structure is a
180-foot, two-span continuous composite girder bridge consisting of two 90-foot spans. This bridge was
designed according to the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.4 for more
detailed Example Bridge 3 layout information. Table 5.1 lists the figures that diagram the vehicle
locations for each run made on Example Bridge 3 (Runs 11 through 15). Some vehicle location
information and all analysis results are listed in Table 6.3.
One difference that is noticed when looking at the results of runs on Example Bridge 3 is that the percentage
of total moment resistance offered by the girders has dropped from the range of 95% or more in the
noncomposite girders to between 31% and 39% in the composite girders. This means that the percentage of
total moment resistance offered by the axial load couple (generated between the slab and girders) in the two-
span continuous bridge ranges from around 58% to 66%. The slab moments in this two-span continuous
structure range from 2.4% to 3.4%. The axial forces generated in the slab are much more important to the
total moment capacity in composite girder construction than the bending action of the slab.
This two-span continuous structure is a wider bridge than both the simply supported and the three-span
continuous structures, with a girder spacing of 10 feet rather than 8 feet. This means that under loads
from the same vehicles, the bridge with the larger girder spacing should exhibit higher maximum LLDFs
than the bridge with smaller girder spacing. This comes from the fact that as girder spacing increases in a
bridge layout, the distance from the applied load to the adjacent girders also increases. As these distances
increase, the girders closest to the load must take a greater percentage of the total load because the load-
sharing members are farther away. This can be seen when comparing the LLDFs in Run 12 with Run 7.
In Run 12, the larger girder spacing produces an exterior girder LLDF value of 0.52 while the smaller
girder spacing of Run 7 only produces an exterior girder LLDF of 0.49. Both of these analyses are for an
HS20 vehicle in a design lane (see Table 6.3). The maximum interior girder LLDF in Run 12 is 0.31,
while in Run 7 the corresponding value is 0.33. This shows the greater amount of load sharing in the
bridge with a smaller girder spacing, while in the bridge with the larger spacing, one girder takes a higher
percentage of the total load.
78
Table 6.3: Example Bridge 3 Analysis Results (Composite)
Lane
Used
M
max Line Girder

(k-in)
Max. M Location
Run 11 HS 20 Design Design 13320 38 from End
Run 12 HS 20 Design Design -8580 Interior Support
Run 13 Veh. #87 Overload Travel 22620 39 from End
Run 14 Veh. #203 Superheavy Center 56376 40 from End
Run 15 Veh. #203 Superheavy Center -82020 Interior Support
Girder M
Total

M
Girder

M
Slab

P*e
(M
T
M
S
) M
S
% LLDF
1 401.9 152.5 10.2 239 392 2.5 0.029
2 1782.9 568.5 56.4 1158 1727 3.2 0.129
3 4343.8 1344.5 176.2 2823 4168 4.1 0.311
4 6881.9 2175.5 210.3 4496 6672 3.1 0.497
R
u
n

1
1

Sum 13411 4241.0 453.1 8716 12957 3.4 0.966
1 411.4 187.5 8.0 216 403 1.9 0.046
2
912.4 358.5 34.0 520 878 3.7 0.101
3 2778.1 1063.5 88.3 1626 2690 3.2 0.309
4 4604.8 1798.5 113.6 2693 4491 2.5 0.516
R
u
n

1
2

Sum 8706.7 3408.0 243.9 5055 8462 2.8 0.972
1 1876.2 605.5 68.25 1202 1808 3.6 0.078
2
4779.1
1469.5 133.54 3176 4646 2.8 0.201
3 7309.5 2206.5 188.7 4914 7121 2.6 0.308
4 9161.9 2936.5 239.3 5986 8923 2.6 0.386
R
u
n

1
3

Sum 23127 7218.0 629.8 15278 22498 2.7 0.973
1 13836 4482.5 361.5 8992 13475 2.6 0.235
2 14885 4471.0 323.7 10090 14561 2.2 0.253
3 14885 4471.0 323.7 10090 14561 2.2 0.253
4 13836 4482.5 361.5 8992 13475 2.6 0.235
R
u
n

1
4

Sum 57442 17907 1370.5 38164 56072 2.4 0.976
1 15168 6151.5 351.6 8665 14816 2.3 0.183
2 25389 9605.5 613.5 15170 24776 2.4 0.305
3 25389 9605.5 613.5 15170 24776 2.4 0.305
4 15168 6151.5 351.6 8665 14816 2.3 0.183
R
u
n

1
5

Sum 81112 31514 1930.3 47670 79184 2.4 0.976
79
Runs 14 and 15 are also interesting to compare in Table 6.3 because the effects of a tractor load along
with the trailer load it pulls are shown in the Run 15 results. In Run 14, all of the loads on the structure
are trailer loads with a wide overall spacing. The LLDFs for Run 14 are very well balanced, showing a
high degree of load sharing. In Run 15, however, the tractor and trailer are present on the structure
simultaneously, both the narrow tractor axles and wide trailer axles load the bridge slab. The maximum
exterior girder moment LLDF in this case is 0.18. The maximum interior girder moment LLDF is 0.31,
showing how a set of narrow axles can force the interior girders to take a higher percentage of their load.
Typically, when these Superheavy vehicles are analyzed, the bridge spans are not long enough to
accommodate both the tractor and the trailer. When the tractor is off the structure during the point of
maximum moment effect, the interior girders take approximately 25% of the total load. This percentage
can increase to about 30% when the tractor is also present on the bridge slab.
6.4 COMPARISON OF BRUFEM RESULTS WITH AASHTO AND TXDOT LLDF VALUES
Table 6.4 lists the maximum BRUFEM moment LLDFs calculated for exterior and interior girders along
with the AASHTO Design LLDFs and the TxDOT Overload LLDFs. The BRUFEM LLDFs were
significantly less than the LLDFs calculated from the AASHTO design equations. For comparison in this
section, the smallest LLDF using the AASHTO and TxDOT LLDF factors are compared with the
corresponding BRUFEM values. The TxDOT LLDFs were calculated by applying the TxDOT Reduction
Factor to the AASHTO WSD and LRFD LLDFs.
For the noncomposite condition, BRUFEM produced a LLDF value of 0.49 compared with the AASHTO
value of 0.57 for a design truck in a design lane (Run 3). For the same design situation on a composite
girder (Run 12), BRUFEM produced an exterior girder LLDF of 0.52, compared with the AASHTO
methods 0.70. The composite girders consistently achieved the most load savings due these BRUFEM
analyses when compared with all of the noncomposite models. These reductions in LLDF values show
the amount of conservatism present in the AASHTO design values and give a ballpark estimate of the
load penalty exterior girders pay during the design process and during overload permitting procedures.
When trucks are moved from design lane locations to actual travel lane locations, even greater benefits
are achieved from the BRUFEM analyses. During Run 2, the BRUFEM results reduced an AASHTO
LLDF of 0.57 to 0.42, which is more than a 25% reduction. The benefits of being able to analyze an
overloaded vehicle in a travel lane versus a design lane allow an exterior girder to see significantly
reduced load. Even when compared with the TxDOT Overload LLDFs, BRUFEM shows a useful level
of benefit. In Run 4, an overload truck in a travel lane was analyzed, with the TxDOT Overload LLDF
calculated at 0.55. The BRUFEM analysis reduced this value another 20% to 0.44. Run 13 analyzed an
overload truck in a travel lane, and BRUFEM reduced the LLDF from 0.68 to 0.39 (a 43% reduction from
the TxDOT Overload LLDF).
In general, the exterior girders see the most benefit from these BRUFEM finite element analyses. The
interior girders do see benefits from BRUFEM analyses; however, the exterior girder design LLDF values
overestimate the loads truly taken by the exterior girders to a greater degree. This trend is due to the
AASHTO requirement of placing a design vehicle close to the edge of the slab, even when the actual
travel lane is significantly closer to the centerline of the bridge.
Table 6.4 lists the BRUFEM moment LLDFs calculated for interior girders along with the AASHTO
Design LLDFs and the TxDOT Overload LLDFs. The TxDOT reduction factors and axle gage used in the
calculations are listed in Table 4.4. The BRUFEM results reduced the LLDF produced by a design truck
in a design lane from 0.41 to 0.33 on the noncomposite girder model of Run 7. BRUFEM also reduced
the AASHTO LRFD LLDF from 0.40 to 0.31 on the composite girder model of Run 11.
80
Table 6.4: Interior and Exterior Girder LLDF Comparison
B
R
U
F
E
M

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r

G
i
r
d
e
r

L
L
D
F

0
.
3
4

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
2

0
.
3
2

0
.
2
5

0
.
3
2

0
.
3
3

0
.
3
0

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
7

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
1

0
.
3
1

0
.
2
5

0
.
3
1

B
R
U
F
E
M

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

G
i
r
d
e
r

L
L
D
F

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
2

0
.
4
9

0
.
4
4

0
.
2
4

0
.
4
9

0
.
4
9

0
.
4
3

0
.
2
4

0
.
2
2

0
.
5
0

0
.
5
2

0
.
3
9

0
.
2
4

0
.
1
8

I
n
t
.

L
R
F
D

0
.
4
4

0
.
2
9

0
.
3
9

0
.
2
9

0
.
2
9

0
.
3
9

0
.
2
8

0
.
2
8

E
x
t
.

L
R
F
D

0
.
6
1

0
.
4
0

0
.
6
1

0
.
4
4

0
.
4
4

0
.
6
8

0
.
4
9

0
.
4
9

T
x
D
O
T

R
e
d
u
c
e
d

L
L
D
F

W
S
D

N

/

A

N

/

A

N

/

A

0
.
5
5

0
.
3
6

N

/

A

N

/

A

0
.
5
5

0
.
4
0

0
.
4
0

N

/

A

N

/

A

0
.
6
9

0
.
5
0

0
.
5
0

I
n
t
.

L
R
F
D

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
5

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
1

0
.
3
8

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
1

0
.
4
0

0
.
4
2

0
.
4
0

0
.
4
0

0
.
4
2

E
x
t
.

L
R
F
D

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
6
3

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
0

0
.
7
0

A
A
S
H
T
O

M
o
m
e
n
t

L
L
D
F

W
S
D

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
5
7

0
.
7
1

0
.
7
1

0
.
7
1

0
.
7
1

0
.
7
1

M

S
i
g
n

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

N
e
g
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

N
e
g
.

P
o
s
.

N
e
g
.

P
o
s
.

P
o
s
.

N
e
g
.

L
a
n
e

U
s
e
d

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
r
a
v
e
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

T
r
a
v
e
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
e
s
i
g
n

D
e
s
i
g
n

T
r
a
v
e
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r

D
e
s
i
g
n

D
e
s
i
g
n

T
r
a
v
e
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

C
e
n
t
e
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

H
2
0

H
S
2
0

H
S
2
0

#
1
8

#
2
3

H
S
2
0

H
S
2
0

#
8
7

#
2
0
3

#
2
0
3

H
S
2
0

H
S
2
0

#
8
7

#
2
0
3

#
2
0
3

R
u
n

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
1

1
2

1
3

1
4

1
5

B
r
i
d
g
e

1

2

3

T
a
b
l
e

6
.
4
:

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r

a
n
d

E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r

G
i
r
d
e
r

L
L
D
F

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

81
The TxDOT Overload LRFD LLDFs do a good job estimating the LLDFs when an overloaded or
Superheavy vehicle travels down the centerline of a bridge in these examples. To illustrate this point, in
Run 14, the TxDOT Overload LLDF is 0.28 and BRUFEM calculates a value of 0.25.
In general, the AASHTO WSD empirical equations overestimate the moment carried by the interior
girders. The AASHTO LRFD LLDF values, after being reduced by the TxDOT Reduction Factor, can
still be reduced at least another 20% by BRUFEM when the vehicles are located in actual travel lanes.
This 20% value was calculated by finding the minimum difference between the AASHTO LRFD LLDF
values and the BRUFEM results. In some runs, this value is greater than 20%; however, this 20% value
is a conservative estimate that greatly decreases the estimated girder moments.
From the BRUFEM results presented here, the slab moment in bridges of span lengths varying from 50 to
80 feet can be estimated to be about 3% of the total applied vehicle moment. Girders in spans of less than
50 feet could see total applied moments reduced by higher percentages of moment being taken in the deck
slab. This trend is not studied extensively in this research but has been verified through field tests
recently conducted on shorter bridge spans of these types in Texas. The moment taken by the slab
reduces the moment taken by the girders, and this added capacity can become significant in shorter
structures. Whether slab moments are considered during overload analysis or not, the benefits of
performing a finite element analysis on a critical bridge structure are substantial.
An extensive study of the effects of 138 vehicles permitted in Texas was completed during this research
program to help quantify a vehicles potential for causing structure distress. The force effects generated
by these permitted vehicles were compared to the force effects generated by various AASHTO design
vehicles to get a quick estimate of the permitted vehicles overload potential.
This information alone is not enough to predict whether a certain bridge structures components will
experience distress from a permitted vehicle. This overload potential must be combined with a bridges
characteristics to quantify the stress levels in each of the bridges critical elements. This research shows
that many permitted vehicles produce moment effects on typical Texas bridges that are many times the
moment effects produced by AASHTO design vehicles. This research also confirms the level of LLDF
reduction that exists for any bridge previously analyzed using AASHTO-based design equations alone.
Accurately estimating the LLDF values in a bridge structure can reduce the overload potential shown
from line-girder analyses of permitted vehicles. Performing BRUFEM analyses improves a bridges
rating due to more accurate load assessment during permitting procedures.
6.5 USING SAP2000 OUTPUT AND BRUFEM RESULTS TO CALCULATE A BRIDGE RATING
This section describes a method for calculating a bridge rating using the programs presented in this
research, BRUFEM and SAP2000. The purpose of this research is to calculate more accurate bridge
ratings using advanced analysis techniques. Simply performing a line-girder analysis using SAP2000
does not give the analyst enough information to rate a bridge. The bridge rating is also a function of the
transverse location of this vehicle on the bridge deck. Modeling this location accurately can drastically
reduce the maximum moment values reported in critical bridge girders.
An example of the rating procedure can be demonstrated using Run 4 on the 50-foot simply supported
noncomposite bridge (Example Bridge 1). See Table 5.1 for the locations of the Figures that describe the
longitudinal and transverse locations of the TxDOT Overload Database Vehicle #18. The maximum line-
girder moment produced by this permit vehicle is 1092 kip-ft on this simple span. An AASHTO HS-20
design vehicle produces a maximum line-girder moment value of 628 kip-ft on the same structure. As
defined in Equation 3.3, the maximum HS20 Moment Ratio for this vehicle on this bridge is 1.74. This
relationship is also shown in Equation 6.1.

82
74 . 1
628
1092
20 =
=
ft k
ft k
MR HS (6.1)
Assuming this simple-span bridge was designed for an HS20 vehicle load, the analyst quickly knows that
this vehicle (Vehicle Record #18) has the potential of overstressing some elements of this bridge. However,
the analyst also knows that this potential for overstress may be decreased by favorably positioning the
vehicle in the transverse direction. During Run 4, Vehicle Record #18 was analyzed in the bridges travel
lane. This research has shown that analyzing a vehicle in its travel lane versus its design lane significantly
reduces the maximum moment effects it produces in girders. The vehicle loads are spread more evenly
when analyses are performed using the travel lane, and this helps improve the bridge rating.
The moment in a critical girder can be calculated using BRUFEMs output. From Table 6.4, the
maximum LLDF value reported from BRUFEM for Run 4 is 0.44 for the exterior girder. Multiplying this
LLDF by the permit vehicles maximum line-girder moment represents the moment present in the exterior
girder under this vehicles load. Equation 6.2 illustrates this calculation.

( ) ( ) ft k M LLDF M
LG BRUFEM ACTUAL
= = = 480 ) 1092 )( 44 . 0 ( (6.2)

The design moment for this girder, assuming the normal AASHTO WSD design procedure for a single
lane was followed, is shown in Equation 6.3. In this calculation, the AASHTO HS20 vehicles maximum
line-girder moment is multiplied by the AASHTO WSD LLDF value.

( ) ( ) k ft M HS LLDF M
LG AASHTO DESIGN
= = = 358 ) 628 )( 57 . 0 ( 20 (6.3)

In order to calculate the girders rating under the permit vehicle load, the ratio of the actual moment to the
design moment must be calculated. If this value is less than 1.0, the girder is resisting less than the
moment required by design. If this ratio is greater than 1.0, the girder is resisting more than the moment
required by design and may experience distress under this vehicle load. Equation 6.4 illustrates this
calculation.
34 . 1
358
480
=
=
k ft
k ft
M
M
Rating Girder
DESIGN
ACTUAL
(6.4)

In this case, the permit vehicle in question produces a 34% overstress condition in the exterior girder
when traveling in the striped travel lane of the bridge. This 34% overstress is quite a reduction from the
HS20 Moment Ratio overstress potential of 74%. The 34% overstress value could also be reduced further
by analyzing the bridge with this vehicle traveling closer to the centerline of the bridge, if this travel
position is possible on the road. The actual overstress in the bridge must consider the dead load as well as
the live load stress. The dead load was not considered in this example since the purpose was to illustrate
the effects of live load position and analysis method upon the calculated stress.
Equation 6.5 illustrates how to use the permit vehicles maximum Moment Ratio values to directly
calculate a Girder Rating using the BRUFEM and AASHTO LLDF values.

83
( ) MR Max
LLDF
LLDF
M
M
ng GirderRati
AASHTO
BRUFEM
DESIGN
ACTUAL
.
= = (6.5)

This process shows the most efficient use of both the BRUFEM LLDF values and the SAP2000 line-
girder analysis results and maximum Moment Ratios. These bridge ratings can only be calculated
knowing the methods used to design a structure. Bridge ratings could be calculated for many
combinations of the AASHTO design vehicles and the WSD and LRFD versions of the AASHTO Design
Specifications. The purpose of this section was to show the reduction of the line-girder overstress
potential through BRUFEM LLDF analysis. For this simple example, the overstress percentage was
reduced from 74% (the line-girder analysis) to 34%. These results show the benefits of performing the
BRUFEM finite element analysis.
84
85
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research was successful in showing the benefits of performing finite element analyses to better
estimate the Lateral Load Distribution Factors that are critical for bridge rating. This work also shows the
degree to which AASHTO design LLDFs and TxDOT overload LLDFs can be reduced. Performing a
finite element analysis can significantly improve the rating of a bridge structure by simply offering better
estimates of how loads are shared by each girder. Rather than using empirical design relationships and
worst-case truck position scenarios, finite element analysis offers the flexibility of analyzing the structure
under the actual live loads it will likely encounter due to uncommon vehicles.
Chapter 6 shows that simply modeling loads in their true positions using a finite element analysis can
reduce the maximum load effect estimates significantly throughout the structure, especially in the exterior
girders. Also, the capacity of the slab, which is ignored during design and when using the AASHTO
LLDF equations, can be modeled and considered effective when completing a finite element analysis.
Considering the slab as effective adds a significant percentage of load-carrying capacity to short-span
bridge structures but can also add small percentages of capacity to long-span bridge structures.
Also important to this research was testing the programs SAP2000 and BRUFEM to see if they could be
effective in providing an analyst the necessary tools to complete such analyses in a timely manner. There
is no question these programs can be used effectively, even though some improvements would make each
better suited for these analyses. Using the AASHTO design equations or the TxDOT overload LLDF
reduction of these values is not taking advantage of the full capacity of the critical bridges in Texas, as
shown in Chapter 6.
7.1 TRENDS IN LLDF COMPARISONS
The exterior girders of bridge structures are penalized when the AASHTO design LLDFs are calculated. This
penalty is due in part to code conservatism, but is also due to modeling unlikely load positions. During design,
these extreme cases must be considered, but for permitting purposes, load positions can be accurately
controlled to a degree that does not warrant penalizing the structure for load conditions it will not see. This
research shows that analyzing a structure under actual load positions creates more load sharing among the
girders, relieving the exterior girder of applied moment to a noticeable degree. The AASHTO design
approaches tend to be less conservative with regard to the interior girders. Also, when overload or Superheavy
vehicles travel along the centerline of the bridge, the interior girders often take the majority of the load.
This research shows the importance of the truck gage or rear axle width on the load-sharing capabilities of
bridge girders. The wider the truck axle width, the better the load is distributed across the girders. Also
important is the relationship between the girder spacing and truck width. When a truck is placed on a
bridge structure with a wide girder spacing, the girders nearest the load are forced to take a greater
percentage of the load than if the girders were spaced more closely. Of course, increasing the truck axle
width also promotes equal load sharing among the bridge girders. It was also found that when a tractor
and a trailer of a wide overload vehicle are simultaneously on a bridge deck, the interior girders take the
greatest percentage of the load when the vehicle is placed at the centerline of the bridge. For most
common load positions, however, the exterior girder does take the highest percentage of girder moment.
It is difficult to develop general equations or rules to allow analysts an instant means of calculating LLDFs
due to each bridges unique characteristics. This research is not in-depth enough to develop these types of
relationships, however, it does show where the capacity is hidden in these types of bridge structures.
Section 6.5 shows the bridge rating procedures possible using SAP2000 and BRUFEM output.
86
It is recommended that analysts consider the slabs moment capacity, as shown by these results to be
significant. The total slab moment capacity can be considered to be equal at each location across a section
of the bridge structure, thus reducing the moments required to be taken by the each girder equally. Factors
of safety should also be added to the finite element results generated by BRUFEM at the engineers
discretion. Most importantly, the permitting body should seriously consider the placement of loads in the
positions that engage the most girders as possible to promote load sharing and to eliminate load hot spots.
In order to encourage timesaving features into the finite element analysis load rating process, building a
BRUFEM database of typical Texas bridge layouts would be a first step to improving the permitting
procedures. BRUFEM analysis models are more difficult to create than to edit, and having a database of
common bridge layouts would allow an analyst the opportunity to model a critical bridge structure by
editing a bridge model from this database. Building a database of common truck layouts that classify as
Overloads or Superheavy vehicles may also be useful to allow an analyst a quick approach to estimating a
bridges load response.
The procedure shown in Chapter 5 for calculating the LLDFs from BRUFEM output is also recommended
rather than simply applying the numbers from BRUFEMs postprocessor. Using the values from the
BRUFEM Brate.out file increases the calculated load effects when diaphragms are present in the
structure. The BRUFEM Users Manual should be read describing the calculation technique used for both
composite and noncomposite girder models before using the program for rating purposes.
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USING SAP2000 AND BRUFEM FOR BRIDGE RATING
SAP2000 is well suited to performing line-girder analyses to calculate the maximum force effects created on
a model due to vehicle loads. The preprocessor offers a great deal of flexibility when it comes to modeling
uncommon truck layouts. Also, the interface with the user is easy to understand and allows for quick data
entry of truck information. The steps for performing an analysis are relatively easy to grasp and a tutorial
example is listed in Appendix A. SAP2000 would also be the ideal finite element program to use for the
LLDF calculations except it lacks the bridge model generation template BRUFEM employs. BRUFEMs
preprocessor added to SAP2000s graphical user interface environment would make an ideal bridge rating
program. BRUFEMs preprocessor is very efficient. The user does not have to be well versed in finite
element modeling techniques to quickly generate a useful model that will give the desired analysis results.
Some cumbersome features of BRUFEM include the lack of a high-quality graphics based postprocessor,
the low limit of elements and nodes available to the user, and the input files required to model uncommon
trucks and varying bridge girder properties. The program does execute quickly, and with some practice, can
be very useful for studying the LLDFs of many types of bridge structures.
7.3 TEXAS PERMIT TRUCK DATABASE
Chapter 2 describes the 138 Texas permit vehicles studied during this research. Tremendous variety exists
among these vehicle records as shown in Table 2.1. The overload potential of these trucks is discussed, along
with the line-girder analysis technique, in Chapter 3. By studying the statistics presented in Table 2.1, it is
easy to see the difficulty faced by state DOTs when it comes to bridge rating. State DOTs will benefit
financially by utilizing the finite element analysis technology available to them to increase the ratings of the
bridges affected daily by these types of vehicle overloads. At this time, the methods described within this
report are the best tools available to develop the most accurate assessment of the damage potential caused by
these permit vehicles.
In conclusion, the line-girder analysis technique, partnered with BRUFEMs finite element analysis
capabilities can prove to be very powerful tools to a bridge analyst. This research uncovers the benefits of
using both of these methods to get better estimates of the overload potential that exists due to overloaded
vehicles and aging bridge structures. These methods can be used in an office environment to both extend
the service lives of many bridges deemed inadequate for heavy loads under AASHTO provisions and
provide more efficient overloaded vehicle routes across the state of Texas.
87
APPENDIX A
PERFORMING A LINE-GIRDER ANALYSIS USING SAP2000
This appendix assumes the bridge analyst has never been exposed to the SAP2000 bridge analysis
techniques and will give a step-by-step procedure for performing a line-girder analysis. It is assumed that
the user is familiar with the use of some type of finite-element software, even if it is not SAP2000. The
SAP2000 Users Guide is a helpful reference for explaining the programs layout and for gaining
confidence while using the graphical user interface for preprocessing.[6] This list serves only as a guide
to line-girder analysis and assumes the user has been exposed to the basics of running the program, such
as how to generate a model using the preprocessor, and how to view the model on-screen.
This example will describe the procedure of completing a line-girder analysis of a 100-foot simple span
structure. Two vehicles will be analyzed, one a SAP2000 Standard Vehicle, the AASHTO HS20-44, and
the other a user-defined AASHTO HS20-44. This will let the user check the results of the SAP2000
Standard Vehicle Database by comparing those results with the user-defined vehicle results. The user-
defined vehicle and SAP2000 Standard Vehicle input techniques are best illustrated by completing both
and comparing results. Figure A.1 illustrates three types of bridge structures that can be analyzed using
line-girder techniques. This report deals with the right-girder bridge primarily, however, since constant
skew bridges contain girders of equal lengths, these can also be modeled using a line-girder analysis.
When variable-skew bridges are encountered, it may be wise to complete line-girder analyses for both the
shortest and the longest girders of the bridge, to get the force effect extremes that could occur due to a
specific truck loading.
88
X
X
X
Y
Girders Below, Typ.
Centerline of Bridge, Typ.
Right Girder Bridge Plan View
Constant Skew Bridge Plan View
Variable Skew Bridge Plan View
All Girders Equal Length
All Girder Lengths Vary

Figure A.1: Three Non-Curved Bridge Layout Classifications
89
The steps for inputting and analyzing a line girder structure using SAP2000 are as follows:
1. To begin the line-girder analysis using SAP2000, launch the program. Once the program has
started, look in the lower right hand corner where the units are displayed. We will use units of
kip-ft in this example. Open a new file by selecting FileNew Model from Template. From
the menu, select the Beam Template (in the upper left). Enter 1 for the number of spans, and
100 for Span Length. Also make sure the boxes next to both Restraints and Gridlines are
checked. Click OK.
2. The line-girder should appear in the two on-screen views. The origin of the coordinate system
will be located at the centerline of the span. This can be changed if desired, but it is not important
in this example. All results will be listed at distances along the structure, not referenced to the
global coordinate system. The default supports created by SAP2000 when using the Beam
Template are one pinned joint to restrain horizontal and vertical movements, and rollers at every
other joint to restrain vertical movement only. The left support in this example will be pinned by
default and the right support will be the roller.
3. Use the cursor to select the frame element. Since the beam cross-section in this example is
constant throughout the length of the members, it is not necessary to redefine the default cross-
sectional properties. If the beam did vary in cross-sectional properties, extra nodes would have to
be added at the cross-section points of variance, and section sizes defined at each location to
model the relative beam section stiffnesses correctly. With the frame element still selected, click
on AssignFrameOutput Segments. The SAP2000 Users Manual suggests adding output
segments rather than nodes to save time during analysis. These output segments allow the user to
read force and/or deflection information directly without adding new nodes to the structure.
Choose 100 output segments for this example. Click OK.
4. Now select DefineMoving Load CasesLanes. Click on Add New Lane. Leave the
default Lane Name as LANE1. This value would have to be renamed if more than one truck
lane was desired on the structure. Since this is only a two-dimensional model, there is no need to
add more than one lane with zero eccentricity. With Frame 1, Eccentricity 0 in the text boxes,
select Add. This will now appear in the gray area below. Select OK, twice.
5. To define the SAP2000 Standard Vehicle, select DefineMoving Load CasesVehicles.
Click on Add Standard Vehicle in the upper right. We need to add the AASHTO HS20-44
vehicle, so find and click on the HSn-44 designation from the pulldown menu named Vehicle
Type. Input a Scale Factor of 20, designating an HS20-44. Click OK.
6. To define the AASHTO HS20-44 truck designation as a general vehicle, select Add General
Vehicle. Change the vehicle name to GENHS20. Change the first axle load to 8. Now look
down below in the table titled, Intermediate Loads. Leave the Uniform field as 0, but change the
Axle value to 32. Also change both the Min. Distance and Max. Distance fields to 14. Select
Add. This is done because the middle axle of the HS20-44 is fixed at 14 feet from the front
axle. Now both the leading axle and the second axle have been input. To input the rear axle,
leave the Axle value at 32. Leave the Min. Distance field at 14. Change the Max. Distance field
to 30. Select Add. This is done to correctly model the rear floating axle position of the
HS20-44 truck. The two intermediate axles information will be shown below. If the information
is incorrect, highlight the incorrect record, change the data, and click Modify. If the data is
correct, click OK, twice.
7. The next step in the input process is to define a Vehicle Class. To do this, select
DefineMoving Load CasesVehicle Classes. Click on Add Class. Insert STDHS20 in
the Vehicle Class Name field. Select HSn441, with a Scale Factor equal to 1. Select Add.
90
Click OK. Click on Add Class. Change the Vehicle Class Name to GENHS20. Under
Vehicle Name, select GENHS20, Scale Factor equal to 1, and select Add. Click OK twice.
8. For information only: Each vehicle must be placed into a separate Vehicle Class in this example
since SAP2000 generates force effect envelopes for Vehicle Classes only. SAP2000 will analyze
all vehicles within each Vehicle Class and generate output for the maximum effects caused by all
vehicles within the class combined. No information is given for each individual vehicle, unless
each individual vehicle is defined as its own Vehicle Class. In our example, we want to examine
the effects of each single vehicle, so this approach must be taken.
9. The next step in the line-girder analysis is to select DefineMoving Load CasesBridge
Responses. Click on both Reactions and Frame Forces. The word All should be visible
in the boxes to the right of each of these selections, meaning all elements in the model are
requested to have this output generated by SAP2000. When more complex models are created,
the user can define element sets by name and request output only for these element sets. Make
sure the Method of Calculation area is marked Exact. Select OK.
10. To continue, select DefineMoving Load CasesMoving Load Cases. Click on Add Load.
Change the Moving Load Case Name field to STDHS20. Leave the Number of Lanes equal to
1 and the Scale Factor equal to 1. Go below and click on Add Assign. Select the Vehicle Class
as STDHS20. Leave the Scale Factor equal to 1. Set the Minimum Number of Loaded Lanes
equal to 0, and set the Maximum Number of Loaded Lanes equal to 1. Go below and highlight
LANE1 and click Add. LANE1 should now appear in the Selected Lanes field. Click
OK twice.
11. To continue, select Add Load. Change the Moving Load Case Name field to GENHS20.
Leave the Number of Lanes equal to 1 and the Scale Factor equal to 1. Go below and click on
Add Assign. Select the Vehicle Class as GENHS20. Leave the Scale Factor equal to 1. Set
the Minimum Number of Loaded Lanes equal to 0, and set the Maximum Number of Loaded
Lanes equal to 1. Go below and highlight LANE1 and click Add. LANE1 should now
appear in the Selected Lanes field. Click OK three times.
12. At this point, the model has been created and it is now ready to be analyzed using SAP2000.
Click on the Run Analysis Icon. Save the file as EXAMPLE1.SDB, or any other suitable
name. The program will be executing its analysis once this file name has been entered. When the
analysis is complete, the analysis window will prompt the user with an OK button. Click on
OK. A deformed shape will show in the 3-D view. This deformed shape is due to the member
self-weight. It is not important for our analysis. Select DisplaySet Output Table
ModeGENHS20 Moving Load. Click OK. While pointing the cursor at the frame element,
right-click the mouse. Analysis output tables will appear, showing the results at the various
output segments in the units displayed in the bottom right hand corner of the screen (kip-ft). Print
these results. Repeat this procedure for the STDHS20 designation by selecting DisplaySet
Output Table ModeSTDHS20 Moving Load and continuing. Both sets of printed tables
should now be available for comparison.
13. The results tables generated by SAP2000 show the File Name at the top of the tables, along with
the selected units and the Moving Load Case requested. The most important columns in these
Frame Element Forces tables are the V2 column and the M3 column. These columns
represent the maximum and minimum internal shear and moment envelope values, respectively,
in our line-girder. Corresponding locations along the structure for each envelope value are also
given for reference. This concludes the line-girder analysis.
14. It should be noted that the tables of output for both the STDHS20 designation and the
GENHS20 designation should be identical. If these results tables are not identical, there has
91
been an error during the model input stage. The maximum moment generated by the HS20
vehicle on a 100-ft simple span is 1523.8 kip-ft. The locations listed by SAP2000 corresponding
to these maximum internal moments are 48 feet and 52 feet along the structure. These locations
match the location of maximum moment effects shown in Figure 3.1, when determined by the
rules of statics. The reason SAP2000 shows two locations where these maximums occur is due to
fact that the program runs each vehicle across the structure in both directions. What is important
to notice is the fact the maximum moment value is correct, as well as the location where this
maximum moment occurs. The maximum shear of 65.3 kips occurs at a support, when all three
of the vehicles axles are on the structure, and the rear 32-kip axle is directly above the support.
This position and the shear values along the structure are illustrated in Figure A.2.
8 k 32 k
72' 14' 14'
6.72 kips
32 k
65.28 kips
100' Simple Span
-65.28 kips
Shear
C.G.
Diagram
Shear
Maximum
Location
Truck's
-33.28 kips
-1.28 kips
6.72 kips

Figure A.2: Loading and Shear Diagrams for HS-20 Truck at Critical
Shear Location on a 100-Foot Simple Span
92

93
APPENDIX B
BRUFEM INPUT FILES
This appendix lists the History.pre files for each of the 15 BRUFEM runs made for this research. The
History.pre files are used to echo the user interactive input required while running the BRUFEMNT
pre-processor. Also included are the Bar.dat files required to model Example Bridges 2 and 3, along
with the Veh.dat files to model the non-standard vehicles where required.
B.1. History.pre Files for all BRUFEM Runs
B.1.1. History.pre File for BRUFEM Run #1:

BEGI N_HI STORY_FI LE
- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 1 - H20 I N TRAVEL LANE
- - - - - <BRI DGE_TYPE_I BTYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <VARI ABLE/ CONSTANT_SKEW>- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <PRI S_NONPRI S_I XSECT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <STL_BASI C_MODEL_DATA>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
8
0
- - - - - <ANALYSI S_TYPE_FULL/ LI VE>- - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <COMPOSI TE_MODEL_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <SLAB_THI CK_STRENGTH>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 605
31. 38
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <BASI C_SLAB_THI CK>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
- - - - - <NUM_ELEM_BTWN_GI RD>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <SPAN_LEN_&_NUM_Y_ELEMS>- - - - - - - - - - - - -
50 50
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
- - - - - <STL_DI A_CROSS_&_BTM_AREA>- - - - - - - - - - -
3. 05
3. 05
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TOP_&_BTM_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 5
2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
94
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. 5
25
37. 5
- - - - - <EXTRA_MEMBERS_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
- - - - - <LEFT_EDGE_WI DTH_&_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - -
3. 583
3
- - - - - <RI GHT_EDGE_WI DTH_&_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - -
3. 583
3
- - - - - <TRAVEL_CLEARANCE_L_&_R>- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. 5
1. 5
- - - - - <VEH_LOAD_GROUP_01_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <VEH_I NPUT_FI LE_I NTER>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
- - - - - <VEH_NUM_VEHI CLES_ON_BRI DGE>- - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <VEH_STANDARD_VEHI CLE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <VEHI CLE_DATA_BASE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <VEH_STANDARD_VEHI CLE_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - -
H20
- - - - - <VEH_POSI TI ON_METHOD>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <VEH_POSI TI ON_FWD/ REV_X_Y>- - - - - - - - - - -
F 218 451
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_DESC_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
- - - - - <MORE_LI VE_LOADS_01_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - -
N
- - - - - <FEM_OUTPUT_QUANTI TY>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
- - - - - <GRAPHI CS_PLOTTI NG_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 1 - HS20 I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
1
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5
3
95
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 605
31. 38
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <BASI C_SLAB_THI CK>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
50 50
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05
3. 05
0. 5
2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. 5
25
37. 5
N
3. 583
3
3. 583
3
1. 5
1. 5
Y
I
1
Y
1
HS20
1
F 218 496
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
96
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 1 - HS20 I N DESI GN LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
1
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 605
31. 38
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <BASI C_SLAB_THI CK>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
50 50
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05
3. 05
0. 5
2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. 5
25
37. 5
N
3. 583
3
3. 583
3
97
1. 5
1. 5
Y
I
1
Y
1
HS20
1
F 244. 5 496
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 1 - VEHI CLE RECORD 18 I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
1
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 605
31. 38
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <BASI C_SLAB_THI CK>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
4
98
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
50 50
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05
3. 05
0. 5
2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. 5
25
37. 5
N
3. 583
3
3. 583
3
1. 5
1. 5
Y
F
1
F 222 444
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 1 - VEHI CLE RECORD 213 I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
1
4
8
0
1
99
1
6. 5
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 605
31. 38
- - - - - <STL_PLATE_B_&_H>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. 535
0. 96
- - - - - <BASI C_SLAB_THI CK>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6. 5
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
50 50
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05
3. 05
0. 5
2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. 5
25
37. 5
N
3. 583
3
3. 583
3
1. 5
1. 5
Y
F
1
F 144 505
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE
100

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 2 - HS20 I N - M LOC. DESI GN LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5 3
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
60 45
75 60
60 45
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05 3. 05
2 2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
40
78. 75
97. 5
116. 25
155
175
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 583 3
3. 583 3
1. 5 1. 5
Y
I
1
Y
101
1
HS20
- - - - - <VEH_HS20_USE_14FT_MI N_YESNO>- - - - - - - -
Y
1
F 244. 5 1476
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 2 - HS20 I N +M END SPAN LOC. DESI GN LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5 3
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
60 45
75 60
60 45
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05 3. 05
2 2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
40
78. 75
97. 5
116. 25
102
155
175
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 583 3
3. 583 3
1. 5 1. 5
Y
I
1
Y
1
HS20
Y
1
F 244. 5 2208
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 2 - VEH. REC. 87 +M I NT. SPAN TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5 3
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
103
60 45
75 60
60 45
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05 3. 05
2 2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
40
78. 75
97. 5
116. 25
155
175
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 583 3
3. 583 3
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 222 1428
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 2 - VEH. REC. 203 I N +M END SPAN TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4
104
8
0
1
1
6. 5 3
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
60 45
75 60
60 45
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05 3. 05
2 2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
40
78. 75
97. 5
116. 25
155
175
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 583 3
3. 583 3
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 144 2322
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


105
- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 2 - VEH. REC. 203 I N - M LOC. TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4
8
0
1
1
6. 5 3
4
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3
60 45
75 60
60 45
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
3. 05 3. 05
2 2
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
40
78. 75
97. 5
116. 25
155
175
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 583 3
3. 583 3
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 144 2308
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
106
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 3 - HS20 +M LOC. I N DESI GN LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4 10 0
1
3
8 4
5
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
90 75
90 75
- - - - - <STL_EFF_NEG_MOM>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
4 4
3 3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
74
106
143
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 5 2
3. 5 2
1. 5 1. 5
Y
I
1
107
Y
1
HS20
Y
1
F 322 1884
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 3 - HS20 - M LOC I N DESI GN LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4 10 0
1
3
8 4
5
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
90 75
90 75
- - - - - <STL_EFF_NEG_MOM>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
4 4
3 3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
74
106
108
143
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 5 2
3. 5 2
1. 5 1. 5
Y
I
1
Y
1
HS20
Y
1
F 322 1800
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 3 - VEH. REC 87 +M I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4 10 0
1
3
8 4
5
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
90 75
109
90 75
- - - - - <STL_EFF_NEG_MOM>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
4 4
3 3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
74
106
143
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 5 2
3. 5 2
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 258 1956
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 3 - VEH. REC. 203 +M I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
4 10 0
1
3
8 4
110
5
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
90 75
90 75
- - - - - <STL_EFF_NEG_MOM>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
4 4
3 3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
74
106
143
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 5 2
3. 5 2
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 180 1987
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE


- - - - - <PROBLEM_TI TLE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EX. BR. 3 - VEH. REC 203 - M I N TRAVEL LANE
STL
- - - - - <TYPE_OF_UNI TS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
2
111
4 10 0
1
3
8 4
5
- - - - - <NUM_SPANS>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
90 75
90 75
- - - - - <STL_EFF_NEG_MOM>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
90
- - - - - <STL_DI A_TYPE>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2
4 4
3 3
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Y
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
- - - - - <ADDED_DI A_DI ST>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
74
106
143
- - - - - <STL_HI NGE_YESNO>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
N
3. 5 2
3. 5 2
1. 5 1. 5
Y
F
1
F 180 2076
N
- - - - - <LANE_LOAD_COUNT>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
N
1
Y
END_HI STORY_FI LE

B.2. Bar.dat Files for Example Bridges 2 and 3
B.2.1. Bar.dat File for BRUFEM Runs 6 through 10 Ex. Bridge 2

CROSS SECTI ONS
: BASI C GI RDER - Br i dge 2
ENGLI SH
112
2
1 6. 5 3
11. 51 0. 855
0. 58 31. 38
11. 51 0. 855
2 6. 5 5
10 0. 4375
11. 51 0. 855
0. 58 31. 38
11. 51 0. 855
10 0. 4375
10
1
54. 5 1
0 2
11 2
0 1
64 1
0 2
11 2
0 1
54. 5 1
END- DATA
WEB STI FFENERS
ENGLI SH
1
1 2340
END- DATA

B.2.2. Bar.dat File for BRUFEM Runs 11 through 15 Ex. Bridge 3

CROSS SECTI ONS
: BASI C GI RDER - Br i dge 3
ENGLI SH
3
1 9. 25 3 : 5. 355
16 0. 75
0. 4375 36
16 0. 875
2 9. 25 3 : 5. 355
16 1
0. 5 36
16 1. 5
3 9. 25 3 : 5. 355
12 0. 75
0. 4375 36
16 0. 875
6
1
63 1
0 2
54 2
0 3
63 3
END- DATA
WEB STI FFENERS
ENGLI SH
2
1 1080
1 1080
END- DATA

B.3. Veh.dat Files for all Non-Standard Vehicles
B.3.1. Veh.dat File for Vehicle #18 BRUFEM Run #4

VEHI CLE DATA
113
ENGLI SH
1
4
24 7 0 2
24 24 24 24
7 7 7 7
0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
7 5 6 5
0 0 0 0
END- DATA

VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
1
61. 5 4. 927 3. 439 4
61. 5
4. 927
3. 439
4
7
5. 25
5. 25
END- DATA


VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
4
16. 5 7 0 2
16. 5 16. 5 21. 5 22. 5
7 6 6 6
0 1 1 1
2 4 4 4
1 1 3 2
4 4 10 17
0 0 4 4
END- DATA

VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
1
35. 61 4. 333 5. 25 4
35. 61
4. 333
5. 25
4
10
5. 08
5. 08
END- DATA


VEHI CLE DATA
114
ENGLI SH
1
2
34. 18 4. 333 5. 25 4
34. 18 35. 61
4. 333 4. 333
5. 25 5. 25
4 4
9 12
5. 08 24
5. 08 5. 08
END- DATA

VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
4
16. 5 7 0 2
16. 5 16. 5 21. 5 22. 5
7 6 6 6
0 1 1 1
2 4 4 4
1 1 3 2
4 4 10 17
0 0 4 4
END- DATA

VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
1
35. 61 4. 333 5. 25 4
35. 61
4. 333
5. 25
4
11
5. 08
5. 08
END- DATA

VEHI CLE DATA
ENGLI SH
1
3
39. 75 8 1 4
39. 75 34. 18 35. 61
8 4. 333 0
1 5. 25 5. 25
4 4 4
1 12 12
4. 5 14 24
0 5. 08 5. 08
END- DATA

115
REFERENCES

[1] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications: Customary US Units, 1
st
ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1994.
[2] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Standard Specifications for
Highway Bridges, 16
th
ed., AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1996.
[3] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Manual for Condition
Evaluation of Bridges, AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 1994.
[4] Hays, Jr., C. O., Consolazio, G. R., Hoit, M. I., and Kakhandiki, A., Bridge Rating of Girder Slab Bridges
Using Automated Finite Element Technology, Final Project Report, University of Florida, Gainesville,
December 1994.
[5] Hays, Jr., C. O., Consolazio, G. R., Hoit, M. I., Garcelon, J. H., and Moy, W., Metric/SI and PC Conversion
of BRUFEM and SALOD Systems, Final Project Report, University of Florida, Gainesville, May 1995.
[6] Computers and Structures, Inc., SAP2000 Analysis Reference Volume 1, Version 6.1, 1997.
[7] Carnahan, J. D., Grubb, M. A., and Hartmann, J. L., Two-Span Continuous Composite I Girder Load and
Resistance Factor Design (Customary U.S. Units), CE397 Class Handout Design Example, University of
Texas at Austin, 1998.
[8] Letter from John Holt, P.E., Bridge Design Section, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, June 30,
1997.
[9] Telephone communication with Robert Crowson, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, April 27, 1999.
[10] Mabsout, M. E., Tarhini, K. M., Frederick, G. R., and Kobrosly, M., Influence of Sidewalks and Railings on
Wheel Load Distribution in Steel Girder Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 2, Num. 3, August
1997.
[11] Mabsout, M. E., Tarhini, K. M., Frederick, G. R., and Tayar, C., Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder
Highway Bridges, Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 2, Num. 3, August 1997.

0 1746 2 (Influence Line)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

0 1746 2 (Influence Line)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Technical Report Documentation Page

= LLDF Load Truck Lane Single

= LLDF Load Truck Lane Multiple

Anda mungkin juga menyukai